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).
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2605. 24661v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs have achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks, yet current evaluation approaches predominantly rely on final-answer correctness, offering limited insight into the underlying reasoning processes that produce those answers.
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. 07885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning modes of language models outperform their non-reasoning counterparts on multi-step agentic tasks, but pay a 3-6x premium in output tokens on every episode -- much of it spent re-deriving procedures that are shared across episodes of the same domain.
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:2602. 03061v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating mathematical reasoning in LLMs is constrained by limited benchmark sizes and inherent model stochasticity, yielding high-variance accuracy estimates and unstable rankings across platforms.
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?