The paper introduces the Grounded Integration Measure (GIM), a benchmark of 820 expert‑authored problems designed to test models on tasks that integrate multiple cognitive operations such as constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, and audience calibration. GIM emphasizes realistic, broadly accessible knowledge rather than specialized expertise, and uses a judge‑aware 2‑parameter logistic IRT model to produce robust ability estimates across 53 model‑thinking‑level configurations. The authors provide a comprehensive leaderboard of 22 models and 47 test configurations, and conduct an extensive study on how test‑time compute affects model capability, finding that configuration choices like thinking budget and quantization can be as influential as model selection itself. whyItMatters":"By focusing on integration of multiple cognitive domains, GIM offers a more realistic assessment of model reasoning capabilities than benchmarks that either overemphasize memorization or abstract reasoning alone."
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
arXiv:2606. 25984v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors.
arXiv:2606. 25984v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors.
arXiv:2510. 00492v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reliability of large language models (LLMs) during test-time scaling is often assessed with \emph{external verifiers} or \emph{reward models} that distinguish correct reasoning from flawed logic.
arXiv:2608. 06933v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Today, we improve models by training and evaluating them on problems at the frontier of their abilities.
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
arXiv:2606. 26671v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training alignment determines the reasoning and human preference following capabilities of large language models, yet most existing works withhold detailed data construction, filtering rules and training recipes, which hinders community reproducibility and lightweight model optimization.
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.
arXiv:2606. 15349v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standardized examinations are typically treated as uniform syllabus coverage problems.
The paper introduces the Token Economy Score (TES), a metric that quantifies the accuracy gain of reasoning-capable large language models relative to non-reasoning baselines, normalized by token generation cost. An empirical study across 151 runs on seven diverse benchmarks shows that task structure—such as sequential inference chains—predicts higher TES, while knowledge-recall tasks yield lower TES despite difficulty. The analysis also reveals diminishing returns at higher reasoning effort and highlights how deployment context, via Reasoning Cost Share and Deployment Cost Multiplier, can alter the economic viability of reasoning workloads.
The paper proposes a unified framework for test‑time reasoning methods, framing them as recursion operators—GROW, PRUNE, and BRANCH—applied to an agent’s reasoning trace. Experiments across five benchmarks and three frontier models show that BRANCH, which samples and selects among multiple reasoning paths, consistently outperforms the other operators and a single‑pass chain‑of‑thought baseline, improving accuracy by an average of 5.98 percentage points. The study also highlights the importance of paired evaluation and careful handling of scoring‑pipeline failures, as these factors can significantly alter comparative outcomes.
arXiv:2606. 05983v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading.