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.
By Dong Bok Lee, Seanie Lee, Sangwoo Park, Minki Kang, Jinheon Baek, Dongki Kim, Dominik Wagner, Jiongdao Jin, Heejun Lee, Tobias Bocklet, Jinyu Wang, Jingjing Fu, Sung Ju Hwang, Jiang Bian, Lei Song
arXiv:2607. 23386v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We document a failure class in frontier large language models -- exception chain collapse -- observed in eligibility evaluation under nested conditional rules of the form "A is required UNLESS B applies, UNLESS C overrides B".
By Paul Simpson, John Kozak, Lisa Doake
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.
By Avni Mittal, Rauno Arike
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
The study investigates how deictic ambiguity—specifically the shifting reference of expressions like "previous"—affects Draft‑Verify‑Revise pipelines that use multiple large language models (LLMs). Using a synthetic dataset of 10 base examples and 21 reasoning‑effort configurations, six LLMs were evaluated for their ability to correctly resolve the ambiguous expression across the draft, verify, and revise stages. Results show wide variance in balanced accuracy, with GPT‑5.2 improving from 0.156 to 0.942 with increased reasoning effort, while Gemini 3 Pro consistently achieved high accuracy above 0.94 even at low reasoning effort, and meta‑evaluators often relied on surface cues when making errors.
By Obinna I. Ekekezie
arXiv:2608.22138v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Language models are usually judged by a single accuracy score, which does not reveal how their performance degrades as inputs are perturbed. We present...
By Samira Golsefid