arXiv:2606. 17648v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Standard accuracy metrics cannot explain why LLMs handle variable tracking but fail on semantically equivalent loops.
arXiv:2608. 12771v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The extent to which large language models for code rely on memorization over genuine understanding remains highly debated.
arXiv:2607. 09999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We show that post-training quantization can silently alter how large language models reason even when task accuracy is preserved.
arXiv:2603. 22016v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often reach a correct solution before their long Chain-of-Thought trace ends, yet continue with redundant verification, repeated attempts, or unnecessary exploration that wastes computation and can even overturn the correct answer.
arXiv:2603.21676v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard Transformers have a fixed computational depth, limiting their ability to generalize to tasks that require variable-depth reasoning....
arXiv:2606. 26488v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recursive reasoning models can solve complex structured tasks with only a few million parameters by repeatedly updating a latent state.
The paper introduces a three-level evaluation framework—behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability—to distinguish whether a language model fails a syntactic test by not encoding structure or by failing to use it. Using a trilingual control-dependency benchmark, the authors find that probe recoverability consistently exceeds LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds behavioral deployment across seven models and three languages, with the largest gap observed in Qwen3-0.6B Instruct. Layer-localized activation patching shows that instruction tuning shifts the decoded layer later, suggesting decoding favors surface shortcuts and that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode while probing alone overstates what they deploy.
arXiv:2607. 03502v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier LLMs can perform multi-step reasoning over content-free filler tokens like dots or counting sequences, producing correct answers with no visible chain-of-thought (CoT).
arXiv:2605.28006v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Understanding how LLMs reason is hindered by a practical asymmetry: while their generated outputs are observable, the underlying reasoning pa...
The paper introduces a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on long‑horizon state tracking by having them compute the MD5 hash through 196 dependent tool calls across 64 rounds, carrying four 32‑bit words in context. It shows that a mixture‑of‑experts LLM can maintain the full state and produce correct digests in most runs, even when all primitive tools are replaced by another LLM. The study isolates state‑tracking difficulty from instruction interpretation and identifies key factors—contextual reasoning and worker voting—that enable success.
arXiv:2606. 29278v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce the Complexity Ceiling Benchmark (CCB), a controlled evaluation of how language-model reasoning decays as the number of required sequential steps grows.
arXiv:2603. 28590v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate chains of thought (CoTs) that are not always causally responsible for their final outputs.
arXiv:2609.37405v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for software engineering tasks that require understanding existing source code, including behavior...