arXiv:2608. 13221v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The evaluation of LLM reasoning is moving from final-answer accuracy to process-level assessment, yet existing methods still fail to capture how models plan reasoning paths and allocate reasoning resources--that is, how they organize search.
arXiv:2605. 28566v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet their standard generation process -- auto-regressive token prediction -- is inherently myopic and prone to cascading errors.
arXiv:2606. 05464v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Verifiable reward training has improved mathematical and coding reasoning, but these domains capture only part of step-by-step decision making.
arXiv:2509. 16456v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in various domains, showing impressive potential on different tasks.
arXiv:2605. 03862v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a common way to improve explicit reasoning in large language models, but final-answer correctness alone does not reveal whether the reasoning trace is faithful, reliable, or useful to the model that consumes it.
arXiv:2512. 07795v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark scores for LLM reasoning systems are reported as single numbers, yet the same model, strategy, and task can produce meaningfully different answers and costs across repeated executions, even under greedy decoding (T = 0).
arXiv:2510. 19990v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The reasoning paradigm, where language models reason before answering, has enabled breakthroughs on tasks such as mathematical problem-solving.
arXiv:2604. 09482v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains remains challenging as intermediate steps are often not locally verifiable: unlike math or code, evaluating step correctness may require synthesizing clues across large external knowledge sources.
arXiv:2508. 02178v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) often exhibit overthinking, producing verbose Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces that increase inference cost and obscure the underlying reasoning process.
arXiv:2607. 11089v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting.
arXiv:2606. 01682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths.
arXiv:2607. 01431v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?