arXiv:2506. 13932v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led to dramatic improvements across a wide range of natural language tasks.
By Saurabh Pujar, Ira Ceka, Irene Manotas, Gail Kaiser, Baishakhi Ray, Shyam Ramji
arXiv:2606. 16934v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reasoning with a Code Interpreter (CI) has emerged as an effective paradigm for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through executable computation and iterative verification.
By Patomporn Payoungkhamdee, Napat Laosaengpha, Jenta Wonglertsakul, Pittawat Taveekitworachai, Pume Tuchinda, Panjapong Poobanchuen, Ekapol Chuangsuwanich, Can Udomcharoenchaikit, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Peerat Limkonchotiwat, Sarana Nutanong
arXiv:2510. 27544v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Current training paradigms, optimized for long-horizon reasoning trace execution, have made Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at pattern matching and forward simulation of reasoning, but underperform at counterfactual causal understanding and reasoning.
By Nikolaus Holzer, William Fishell, Baishakhi Ray, Mark Santolucito
arXiv:2607. 04096v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current agentic workflows usually involve decomposing user requests into sequences of tool calls with correctly resolved parameters, the results of which are processed through reasoning traces in the language model's context window.
By Vishvesh Bhat, Jay Vaghasiya, Emmanuel Anaya Gonzalez
arXiv:2606. 21678v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning.
By Vatsal Ananthula, Adarsh Kumarappan
arXiv:2505.23126v5 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Although many benchmarks evaluate the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domains such as mathematics, coding, or data wrang...
By Atharva Naik, Prakam, Yash Mathur, Darsh Agrawal, Manav Kapadnis, Yuwei An, Clayton Marr, Carolyn Rose, David Mortensen
The paper introduces CodeRQ-Bench, the first benchmark for assessing large language model reasoning quality across coding tasks such as generation, summarization, and classification. It analyzes over a thousand mismatches from existing evaluators, identifies recurring limitations, and derives design insights that lead to a new two‑stage evaluator, VERA. Experiments show VERA outperforms strong baselines, improving AUCROC by up to 0.26 and AUPRC by up to 0.21 on four datasets.
By Yuangang Li, Justin Tian Jin Chen, Ethan Yu, David Hong, Iftekhar Ahmed
The paper demonstrates that frontier language models can be prompted to expose their internal chain-of-thought reasoning via a simple custom tool. By comparing these extracted traces to native reasoning on open-source models, the authors confirm that the externalized reasoning aligns with genuine reasoning and outperforms no-reasoning baselines across math, science, and code tasks. They further analyze the structure of the reasoning, noting token-efficient, directed reasoning in models like GPT‑6 Astra, which externalizes only crucial steps while handling elementary ones internally.
By Xiaoyu Luo, Tao Ren, Wenrui Yu, Xiao Li, Qiongxiu Li, Johannes Bjerva
TRACES (Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost‑Efficient Early‑Stopping) is a lightweight framework that tags reasoning steps of large‑language models in real time, enabling adaptive, cost‑efficient early stopping during inference. By monitoring the types of steps generated, the method identifies when models shift their reasoning after arriving at a correct answer, allowing for interpretable stopping criteria. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH500, GSM8K, AIME) and knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA) show token reductions of 20–50% while preserving accuracy, with more conservative thresholds needed for harder tasks such as BeyondAIME and IMO AnswerBench.
By Yannis Belkhiter, Seshu Tirupathi, Giulio Zizzo, John D. Kelleher
The paper introduces PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in C++, Java, and Python, to test whether large language models can judge functional equivalence across languages. Using this dataset, the authors evaluate several open-weight and proprietary LLMs, finding that models struggle more with harder problems, show language-specific biases, and rely partly on superficial similarity cues. They also observe run‑to‑run instability in GPT‑o4‑mini, concluding that current LLMs do not reliably capture functional equivalence within or across programming languages.
By Hui Sun, Anderson Uch\^oa, Rohit Gheyi, Wesley K. G. Assun\c{c}\~ao
Current agentic workflows usually involve decomposing user requests into sequences of tool calls with correctly resolved parameters, the results of which are processed through reasoning traces in the language model's context window. The prevailing route to improve such reasoning is test-time scaling, which trains models to search over long chains of thought; but the resulting capability is entangled in model weights, is not verifiable step-by-step, and is costly at inference.
arXiv:2607. 20520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on mathematical problem solving, yet prior work often treats representationally equivalent formulations as interchangeable and conflates reasoning errors with interface failures.
By Sagnik Nath, Edith Aurora Graf, Liang Zhang, Diego Zapata-Rivera