arXiv Computation and Language

Tasks over Application Manuals: Revealing Gaps in Long-Horizon Procedural Reasoning for Language Models

The paper introduces Tasks over Application Manuals (TAM), a benchmark designed to test long‑horizon procedural reasoning in large language models. TAM uses real‑world tasks from ICD‑10‑CM clinical coding and U.S. federal sentencing, requiring models to follow extensive, rule‑based manuals and perform interdependent steps to produce exact answers. Experiments with GPT‑5 and various prompting strategies show very low exact‑match accuracy—1% for coding and 15.5% for sentencing—highlighting a gap between current benchmarks and the ability to reliably follow complex procedures.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Retrieval-Augmented Agentic Rubric Generation for Reliable Medical Response Evaluation

The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.

By Yinzhu Chen, Abdine Maiga, Hossein A. Rahmani, Emine Yilmaz
arXiv AI
Oct 2

Legal Research Bench: Measuring End-to-End Reliability in Long-Horizon Legal Research Agents

Legal Research Bench (LRB) is a new benchmark comprising 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. The study evaluates thirteen advanced language‑model agents using web search, case‑law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools, scoring responses only when all required criteria are met and cited authorities verify. Results show that even the best model, Claude Opus 4.8, achieves full correctness on only 42.9% of questions, with performance varying by legal area and task complexity, and no clear link between more tool calls or inference cost and higher accuracy.

By Katrina Drozdov, Oliver Chen, Langston Nashold, Rayan Krishnan
arXiv AI
Oct 21

A general-purpose System One decision model for clinical records

The paper introduces Clinical System One (CS1), a 4‑billion‑parameter decision model that rapidly produces typed judgments from clinical records. Trained on 12.4 million Q&A pairs from 3.6 million patients, CS1 can answer multiple questions in a single forward pass, providing probability estimates for uncertain cases. In evaluations on 963,408 held‑out patients and 21 external datasets, CS1 outperformed larger open models and, when paired with a language‑model agent, efficiently identified trial‑eligible patients with far fewer tokens.

By Andrew Zhang, Trinh T. L. Vuong, Sophia J. Wagner, Dongmin Bang, Tong Ding, Yuchang Su, Mary Cipperman, Christina S. Chen, Judith Lefkes, Ramin Kahidi, Ming Y. Lu, Caiwei Tian, Tianhao Luo, Jingnan Ma, Rowland Pettit, Long Phi Le, Faisal Mahmood
arXiv AI
Aug 17

The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI

arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.

By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 28

RGDT-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Reasoning for Rule-Governed Decisions and Their Justifications

RGDT-Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates large language models on Rule‑Governed Decision Tasks, where models must apply external rules to facts, justify decisions, and provide checkable justifications. The benchmark offers 202.1K condition‑level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight task‑probe combinations, and it labels warrant completeness through label‑blind extraction and deterministic checks. Evaluation shows that among correct responses, 40.2% of warrants are incomplete, and existing evaluators struggle to detect this, prompting the authors to train a reward model that improves AUROC to 69.24% and outperforms outcome‑supervised baselines.

arXiv AI
Aug 18

DiagnosisArena: Benchmarking Diagnostic Reasoning for Large Language Models

arXiv:2505. 14107v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The emergence of groundbreaking large language models capable of performing complex reasoning tasks holds significant promise for addressing various scientific challenges, including those arising in complex clinical scenarios.

By Yakun Zhu, Zhongzhen Huang, Linjie Mu, Yutong Huang, Wei Nie, Jiaji Liu, Shaoting Zhang, Pengfei Liu, Xiaofan Zhang
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25

Beyond Factual Knowledge: Benchmarking and Learning Step-Level Procedural Rule Reasoning in Large Language Models

arXiv:2608.22753v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel at text understanding and generation, yet still struggle to reliably understand and apply externally provided proced...

By Bohan Yu, Pengfei Cao, Chen Han, Chenxi Zhou, Zhiheng Zhang, Zhiyang Xie, Wenhao Teng, Xiangwen Liao, Jun Zhao, Kang Liu
arXiv AI
Jul 22

MEDIC: Comprehensive Evaluation of Leading Indicators for LLM Safety and Utility in Clinical Applications

arXiv:2409. 07314v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve superhuman performance on standardized medical licensing exams, these static benchmarks have become saturated and increasingly disconnected from the functional requirements of clinical workflows.

By Praveenkumar Kanithi, Cl\'ement Christophe, Marco AF Pimentel, Tathagata Raha, Prateek Munjal, Nada Saadi, Hamza A Javed, Svetlana Maslenkova, Nasir Hayat, Ronnie Rajan, Shadab Khan