arXiv Computation and Language

Who Benchmarks the Benchmarks? Towards Comprehensive Evaluation of Commonsense Reasoning Benchmarks

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
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

Beyond Output Correctness: Benchmarking and Evaluating Large Language Model Reasoning in Coding Tasks

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
arXiv AI
Jun 2

KnowledgeBerg: Evaluating Systematic Knowledge Coverage and Compositional Reasoning in Large Language Models

arXiv:2604. 17621v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Many real-world questions appear deceptively simple yet implicitly demand two capabilities: (i) systematic coverage of a bounded knowledge universe and (ii) compositional set-based reasoning over that universe, a phenomenon we term "the tip of the iceberg.

By Xiao Zhang, Qianru Meng, Yongjian Chen, Yumeng Wang, Johan Bos
arXiv AI
Sep 10

LogicSkills: A Structured Benchmark for Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models

LogicSkills is a benchmark designed to isolate three core logical abilities in large language models: formal symbolization, countermodel construction, and validity assessment. The dataset draws items from the two-variable fragment of first‑order logic without identity, presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce‑word language, and all instances are solver‑verified with Z3. Results show that conventional instruction‑tuned LLMs excel at validity assessment but struggle with symbolization and countermodel construction, whereas recent reasoning‑tuned models perform well across all tasks, indicating a more systematic logical skill profile.

By Brian Rabern, Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 10

Building Multilingual Bridges: Data Mixing as the Pillar of Generalization for In-Language Reasoning

arXiv:2609.10445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning language models have made substantial advances on a variety of complex tasks, yet their capabilities remain overwhelmingly English-centric: m...

By Mehrnaz Mofakhami, Ananya Sahu, Alejandro R. Salamanca, Daniel D'souza, Alexandre Berard, Thomas Euyang, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer