Daily Papers

Negation has been shown to be a major bottleneck for masked language models, such as BERT. However, whether this finding still holds for larger-sized auto-regressive language models (``LLMs'') has not been studied comprehensively. With the ever-increasing volume of research and applications of LLMs, we take a step back to evaluate the ability of current-generation LLMs to handle negation, a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that is central to language understanding. We evaluate different LLMs -- including the open-source GPT-neo, GPT-3, and InstructGPT -- against a wide range of negation benchmarks. Through systematic experimentation with varying model sizes and prompts, we show that LLMs have several limitations including insensitivity to the presence of negation, an inability to capture the lexical semantics of negation, and a failure to reason under negation.

State-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) suffer from a critical failure in understanding negation, often referred to as affirmative bias. This limitation is particularly severe in described object detection (DOD) tasks. To address this, we propose two primary contributions: (1) a new dataset pipeline and (2) a novel, lightweight adaptation recipe. First, we introduce CoVAND, a dataset constructed with a systematic chain-of-thought (CoT) and VQA-based pipeline to generate high-quality, instance-grounded negation data. Second, we propose NegToMe, a novel text token merging module that directly tackles the architectural cause of affirmative bias. NegToMe fundamentally addresses the structural loss of negation cues in tokenization, grouping them with attributes into coherent semantic phrases. It maintains correct polarity at the input level, enabling robust negation understanding even with limited data. For instance, to prevent a model from treating the fragmented tokens "not" and "girl" as simply "girl", NegToMe binds them into a single token whose meaning is correctly distinguished from that of "girl" alone. This module is integrated with a parameter-efficient and strategic LoRA fine-tuning approach. Our method significantly improves performance on challenging negation benchmarks with a lowered false positive rate, boosting NMS-AP by up to +10.8 points on OVDEval and demonstrating generalization to SoTA VLMs. This work marks a crucial step forward in addressing negation understanding for real-world detection applications.

Negation is a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that poses persistent challenges for Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in tasks requiring deep semantic understanding. Existing benchmarks often treat negation as a side case within broader tasks like natural language inference, resulting in a lack of benchmarks that exclusively target negation understanding. In this work, we introduce Thunder-NUBench, a novel benchmark explicitly designed to assess sentence-level negation understanding in LLMs. Thunder-NUBench goes beyond surface-level cue detection by contrasting standard negation with structurally diverse alternatives such as local negation, contradiction, and paraphrase. The benchmark consists of manually curated sentence-negation pairs and a multiple-choice dataset that enables in-depth evaluation of models' negation understanding.

Many practical vision-language applications require models that understand negation, e.g., when using natural language to retrieve images which contain certain objects but not others. Despite advancements in vision-language models (VLMs) through large-scale training, their ability to comprehend negation remains underexplored. This study addresses the question: how well do current VLMs understand negation? We introduce NegBench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate negation understanding across 18 task variations and 79k examples spanning image, video, and medical datasets. The benchmark consists of two core tasks designed to evaluate negation understanding in diverse multimodal settings: Retrieval with Negation and Multiple Choice Questions with Negated Captions. Our evaluation reveals that modern VLMs struggle significantly with negation, often performing at chance level. To address these shortcomings, we explore a data-centric approach wherein we finetune CLIP models on large-scale synthetic datasets containing millions of negated captions. We show that this approach can result in a 10% increase in recall on negated queries and a 40% boost in accuracy on multiple-choice questions with negated captions.

Although negation is known to challenge large language models (LLMs), benchmarks for evaluating negation understanding, especially in Korean, are scarce. We conduct a corpus-based analysis of Korean negation and show that LLM performance degrades under negation. We then introduce Thunder-KoNUBench, a sentence-level benchmark that reflects the empirical distribution of Korean negation phenomena. Evaluating 47 LLMs, we analyze the effects of model size and instruction tuning, and show that fine-tuning on Thunder-KoNUBench improves negation understanding and broader contextual comprehension in Korean.

A number of recent benchmarks seek to assess how well models handle natural language negation. However, these benchmarks lack the controlled example paradigms that would allow us to infer whether a model had learned how negation morphemes semantically scope. To fill these analytical gaps, we present the Scoped Negation NLI (ScoNe-NLI) benchmark, which contains contrast sets of six examples with up to two negations where either zero, one, or both negative morphemes affect the NLI label. We use ScoNe-NLI to assess fine-tuning and in-context learning strategies. We find that RoBERTa and DeBERTa models solve ScoNe-NLI after many shot fine-tuning. For in-context learning, we test InstructGPT models and find that most prompt strategies are not successful, including those using step-by-step reasoning. To better understand this result, we extend ScoNe with ScoNe-NLG, a sentence completion test set that embeds negation reasoning in short narratives. Here, InstructGPT is successful, which reveals the model can correctly reason about negation, but struggles to do so on prompt-adapted NLI examples outside of its core pretraining regime.

Large language models underestimate the impact of negations on how much they change the meaning of a sentence. Therefore, learned evaluation metrics based on these models are insensitive to negations. In this paper, we propose NegBLEURT, a negation-aware version of the BLEURT evaluation metric. For that, we designed a rule-based sentence negation tool and used it to create the CANNOT negation evaluation dataset. Based on this dataset, we fine-tuned a sentence transformer and an evaluation metric to improve their negation sensitivity. Evaluating these models on existing benchmarks shows that our fine-tuned models outperform existing metrics on the negated sentences by far while preserving their base models' performances on other perturbations.

Conversational systems often rely on embedding models for intent classification and intent clustering tasks. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), which enable instructional embeddings allowing one to adjust semantics over the embedding space using prompts, are being viewed as a panacea for these downstream conversational tasks. However, traditional evaluation benchmarks rely solely on task metrics that don't particularly measure gaps related to semantic understanding. Thus, we propose an intent semantic toolkit that gives a more holistic view of intent embedding models by considering three tasks -- (1) intent classification, (2) intent clustering, and (3) a novel triplet task. The triplet task gauges the model's understanding of two semantic concepts paramount in real-world conversational systems -- negation and implicature. We observe that current embedding models fare poorly in semantic understanding of these concepts. To address this, we propose a pre-training approach to improve the embedding model by leveraging augmentation with data generated by an auto-regressive model and a contrastive loss term. Our approach improves the semantic understanding of the intent embedding model on the aforementioned linguistic dimensions while slightly effecting their performance on downstream task metrics.

Negation is poorly captured by current language models, although the extent of this problem is not widely understood. We introduce a natural language inference (NLI) test suite to enable probing the capabilities of NLP methods, with the aim of understanding sub-clausal negation. The test suite contains premise--hypothesis pairs where the premise contains sub-clausal negation and the hypothesis is constructed by making minimal modifications to the premise in order to reflect different possible interpretations. Aside from adopting standard NLI labels, our test suite is systematically constructed under a rigorous linguistic framework. It includes annotation of negation types and constructions grounded in linguistic theory, as well as the operations used to construct hypotheses. This facilitates fine-grained analysis of model performance. We conduct experiments using pre-trained language models to demonstrate that our test suite is more challenging than existing benchmarks focused on negation, and show how our annotation supports a deeper understanding of the current NLI capabilities in terms of negation and quantification.

Negation is a common everyday phenomena and has been a consistent area of weakness for language models (LMs). Although the Information Retrieval (IR) community has adopted LMs as the backbone of modern IR architectures, there has been little to no research in understanding how negation impacts neural IR. We therefore construct a straightforward benchmark on this theme: asking IR models to rank two documents that differ only by negation. We show that the results vary widely according to the type of IR architecture: cross-encoders perform best, followed by late-interaction models, and in last place are bi-encoder and sparse neural architectures. We find that most current information retrieval models do not consider negation, performing similarly or worse than randomly ranking. We show that although the obvious approach of continued fine-tuning on a dataset of contrastive documents containing negations increases performance (as does model size), there is still a large gap between machine and human performance.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for data generation. However, creating evaluation benchmarks raises the bar for this emerging paradigm. Benchmarks must target specific phenomena, penalize exploiting shortcuts, and be challenging. Through two case studies, we investigate whether LLMs can meet these demands by generating reasoning over-text benchmarks and comparing them to those created through careful crowdsourcing. Specifically, we evaluate both the validity and difficulty of LLM-generated versions of two high-quality reading comprehension datasets: CondaQA, which evaluates reasoning about negation, and DROP, which targets reasoning about quantities. We find that prompting LLMs can produce variants of these datasets that are often valid according to the annotation guidelines, at a fraction of the cost of the original crowdsourcing effort. However, we show that they are less challenging for LLMs than their human-authored counterparts. This finding sheds light on what may have been lost by generating evaluation data with LLMs, and calls for critically reassessing the immediate use of this increasingly prevalent approach to benchmark creation.

Language model probing is often used to test specific capabilities of models. However, conclusions from such studies may be limited when the probing benchmarks are small and lack statistical power. In this work, we introduce new, larger datasets for negation (NEG-1500-SIMP) and role reversal (ROLE-1500) inspired by psycholinguistic studies. We dramatically extend existing NEG-136 and ROLE-88 benchmarks using GPT3, increasing their size from 18 and 44 sentence pairs to 750 each. We also create another version of extended negation dataset (NEG-1500-SIMP-TEMP), created using template-based generation. It consists of 770 sentence pairs. We evaluate 22 models on the extended datasets, seeing model performance dip 20-57% compared to the original smaller benchmarks. We observe high levels of negation sensitivity in models like BERT and ALBERT demonstrating that previous findings might have been skewed due to smaller test sets. Finally, we observe that while GPT3 has generated all the examples in ROLE-1500 is only able to solve 24.6% of them during probing. The datasets and code are available on https://github.com/text-machine-lab/extending_psycholinguistic_dataset{Github}.

Reliable evaluation of large language models in surgery remains underdeveloped. Broad medical benchmarks test clinical knowledge, while surgery requires procedural reasoning, management trade-offs, negation handling, and selection among plausible operative decisions. We present SurgiQ, a text-only, source-grounded benchmark of 13,055 four-option multiple-choice questions spanning six surgical domains and four question formats: case-based, reasoning, best-option, and negative. SurgiQ is constructed from surgical textbooks, open-access papers, and examination material using a multi-stage generation, verification, and expert-audit pipeline. We evaluate 35 open-weight LLMs under a unified log-likelihood protocol. Our results show substantial remaining headroom: smaller models often remain near the 25\% random baseline, while the best model reaches 68.1\% accuracy. General-purpose models, especially Qwen2.5, outperform most biomedical models, suggesting that current medical specialization does not yet provide sufficiently broad surgical coverage. Calibration and error analysis further show that even strong models make confident mistakes on clinically plausible distractors, motivating more reliable and broader surgical LLM evaluation.

Retrieval is a fundamental task in multimodal systems: given an image or text query, the goal is to find the most relevant images or texts in a collection, often using a shared embedding space. Reliable retrieval requires these embeddings to capture not only which concepts are present, but also how they are composed. One key compositional challenge is attribute--object binding: encoding which attributes belong to which objects. Existing benchmarks provide a limited view of this capability, typically covering a subset of modality pairings, simple two-object swaps, or small attribute sets. Consequently, it remains unclear how robustly current models preserve attribute--object bindings across different modality pairings and more complex settings. We therefore introduce SABER, a controlled benchmark for evaluating attribute--object binding across all four image and text modality pairings, spanning diverse attribute types and scenes with up to ten objects. Evaluating models on SABER reveals substantial binding failures in both CLIP-style dual encoders and recent MLLM-based embedders. These findings motivate us to ask how binding can be improved efficiently. While multimodal supervision may be effective, collecting suitable images is difficult and costly. Text, on the other hand, is well suited to binding supervision: it is cheap to generate, supports a broader range of attributes and enables precisely controlled hard negatives. We thus finetune an MLLM-based embedder exclusively on synthetic attribute-binding text. Despite the absence of image supervision, the gains transfer to cross-modal and image--image retrieval while preserving general multimodal embedding performance. Our model achieves SOTA results on SABER while also improving on negation and instance-retrieval benchmarks, demonstrating broader benefits of our binding-focused supervision.

As multimodal content continues to expand at a rapid pace, audio retrieval has emerged as a key enabling technology for media search, content organization, and intelligent assistants. However, most existing benchmarks concentrate on semantic matching and fail to capture the fact that real-world queries often demand advanced reasoning abilities, including negation understanding, temporal ordering, concurrent event recognition, and duration discrimination. To address this gap, we introduce ReasonAudio, the first reasoning-intensive benchmark for Text-Audio Retrieval, comprising 1,000 queries and 10,000 composite audio clips across five fundamental reasoning tasks: Negation, Order, Overlap, Duration, and Mix. Despite their intuitive nature for humans and straightforward construction, these tasks pose significant challenges to current models. Our evaluation of ten state-of-the-art models reveals the following findings: All models struggle with reasoning-intensive audio retrieval, performing particularly poorly on Negation and Duration while showing relatively better results on Overlap and Order. Moreover, Multimodal Large Language Model-based embedding models fail to inherit the reasoning capabilities of their backbones through contrastive fine-tuning, suggesting that current training paradigms are insufficient to preserve reasoning capacity in retrieval settings

In recent years, many neural network (NN) verifiers have been developed to formally verify certain properties of neural networks such as robustness. Although many benchmarks have been constructed to evaluate the performance of NN verifiers, they typically lack a ground-truth for hard instances where no current verifier can verify and no counterexample can be found, which makes it difficult to check the soundness of a new verifier if it claims to verify hard instances which no other verifier can do. We propose to develop a soundness benchmark for NN verification. Our benchmark contains instances with deliberately inserted counterexamples while we also try to hide the counterexamples from regular adversarial attacks which can be used for finding counterexamples. We design a training method to produce neural networks with such hidden counterexamples. Our benchmark aims to be used for testing the soundness of NN verifiers and identifying falsely claimed verifiability when it is known that hidden counterexamples exist. We systematically construct our benchmark and generate instances across diverse model architectures, activation functions, input sizes, and perturbation radii. We demonstrate that our benchmark successfully identifies bugs in state-of-the-art NN verifiers, as well as synthetic bugs, providing a crucial step toward enhancing the reliability of testing NN verifiers. Our code is available at https://github.com/MVP-Harry/SoundnessBench and our benchmark is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/SoundnessBench/SoundnessBench.

Recent advancements in language models have led to significant improvements in mathematical reasoning across various benchmarks. However, most of these benchmarks rely on automatic evaluation methods that only compare final answers using heuristics, without verifying the underlying reasoning steps. This limitation results in false positive solutions, where models may produce correct final answers but with flawed deduction paths. In this paper, we systematically examine the prevalence of false positive solutions in mathematical problem solving for language models. We analyze the characteristics and extent of this issue across different open-source models, datasets of varying difficulty levels, and decoding strategies. Specifically, we explore how false positives influence the inference time scaling behavior of language models. Our experimental results reveal that: (1) false positive solutions persist across different models, datasets, and decoding methods, (2) sampling-based inference time scaling methods do not alleviate the problem, and (3) the pass@N evaluation metric is more susceptible to false positives, suggesting a significantly lower scaling ceiling than what automatic evaluations indicate. Additionally, we analyze specific instances of false positives and discuss potential limitations in self-improvement techniques and synthetic data generation under such conditions. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/Wloner0809/False-Positives-in-Math.

Resolving the scope of a negation within a sentence is a challenging NLP task. The complexity of legal texts and the lack of annotated in-domain negation corpora pose challenges for state-of-the-art (SotA) models when performing negation scope resolution on multilingual legal data. Our experiments demonstrate that models pre-trained without legal data underperform in the task of negation scope resolution. Our experiments, using language models exclusively fine-tuned on domains like literary texts and medical data, yield inferior results compared to the outcomes documented in prior cross-domain experiments. We release a new set of annotated court decisions in German, French, and Italian and use it to improve negation scope resolution in both zero-shot and multilingual settings. We achieve token-level F1-scores of up to 86.7% in our zero-shot cross-lingual experiments, where the models are trained on two languages of our legal datasets and evaluated on the third. Our multilingual experiments, where the models were trained on all available negation data and evaluated on our legal datasets, resulted in F1-scores of up to 91.1%.

The ability of language models in RAG systems to selectively refuse to answer based on flawed context is critical for safety, yet remains a significant failure point. Our large-scale study reveals that even frontier models struggle in this setting, with refusal accuracy dropping below 50% on multi-document tasks, while exhibiting either dangerous overconfidence or overcaution. Static benchmarks fail to reliably evaluate this capability, as models exploit dataset-specific artifacts and memorize test instances. We introduce RefusalBench, a generative methodology that programmatically creates diagnostic test cases through controlled linguistic perturbation. Our framework employs 176 distinct perturbation strategies across six categories of informational uncertainty and three intensity levels. Evaluation of over 30 models uncovers systematic failure patterns: refusal comprises separable detection and categorization skills, and neither scale nor extended reasoning improves performance. We find that selective refusal is a trainable, alignment-sensitive capability, offering a clear path for improvement. We release two benchmarks -- RefusalBench-NQ (single document) and RefusalBench-GaRAGe (multi-document) -- and our complete generation framework to enable continued, dynamic evaluation of this critical capability.

Negation is a fundamental aspect of natural language, playing a critical role in communication and comprehension. Our study assesses the negation detection performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models, specifically GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. We focus on the identification of negation in natural language using a zero-shot prediction approach applied to our custom xNot360 dataset. Our approach examines sentence pairs labeled to indicate whether the second sentence negates the first. Our findings expose a considerable performance disparity among the GPT models, with GPT-4 surpassing its counterparts and GPT-3.5 displaying a marked performance reduction. The overall proficiency of the GPT models in negation detection remains relatively modest, indicating that this task pushes the boundaries of their natural language understanding capabilities. We not only highlight the constraints of GPT models in handling negation but also emphasize the importance of logical reliability in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, science, and law.

Test-time scaling has significantly improved large language model performance, enabling deeper reasoning to solve complex problems. However, this increased reasoning capability also leads to excessive token generation and unnecessary problem-solving attempts. We introduce Don\'t Answer Bench (DNA Bench), a new benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs ability to robustly understand the tricky reasoning triggers and avoiding unnecessary generation. DNA Bench consists of 150 adversarially designed prompts that are easy for humans to understand and respond to, but surprisingly not for many of the recent prominent LLMs. DNA Bench tests models abilities across different capabilities, such as instruction adherence, hallucination avoidance, redundancy filtering, and unanswerable question recognition. We evaluate reasoning LLMs (RLMs), including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI O3-mini, Claude-3.7-sonnet and compare them against a powerful non-reasoning model, e.g., GPT-4o. Our experiments reveal that RLMs generate up to 70x more tokens than necessary, often failing at tasks that simpler non-reasoning models handle efficiently with higher accuracy. Our findings underscore the need for more effective training and inference strategies in RLMs.

State-of-the-art models in NLP are now predominantly based on deep neural networks that are opaque in terms of how they come to make predictions. This limitation has increased interest in designing more interpretable deep models for NLP that reveal the `reasoning' behind model outputs. But work in this direction has been conducted on different datasets and tasks with correspondingly unique aims and metrics; this makes it difficult to track progress. We propose the Evaluating Rationales And Simple English Reasoning (ERASER) benchmark to advance research on interpretable models in NLP. This benchmark comprises multiple datasets and tasks for which human annotations of "rationales" (supporting evidence) have been collected. We propose several metrics that aim to capture how well the rationales provided by models align with human rationales, and also how faithful these rationales are (i.e., the degree to which provided rationales influenced the corresponding predictions). Our hope is that releasing this benchmark facilitates progress on designing more interpretable NLP systems. The benchmark, code, and documentation are available at https://www.eraserbenchmark.com/

Negation is a fundamental linguistic concept used by humans to convey information that they do not desire. Despite this, minimal research has focused on negation within text-guided image editing. This lack of research means that vision-language models (VLMs) for image editing may struggle to understand negation, implying that they struggle to provide accurate results. One barrier to achieving human-level intelligence is the lack of a standard collection by which research into negation can be evaluated. This paper presents the first large-scale dataset, Negative Instruction (NeIn), for studying negation within instruction-based image editing. Our dataset comprises 366,957 quintuplets, i.e., source image, original caption, selected object, negative sentence, and target image in total, including 342,775 queries for training and 24,182 queries for benchmarking image editing methods. Specifically, we automatically generate NeIn based on a large, existing vision-language dataset, MS-COCO, via two steps: generation and filtering. During the generation phase, we leverage two VLMs, BLIP and InstructPix2Pix (fine-tuned on MagicBrush dataset), to generate NeIn's samples and the negative clauses that expresses the content of the source image. In the subsequent filtering phase, we apply BLIP and LLaVA-NeXT to remove erroneous samples. Additionally, we introduce an evaluation protocol to assess the negation understanding for image editing models. Extensive experiments using our dataset across multiple VLMs for text-guided image editing demonstrate that even recent state-of-the-art VLMs struggle to understand negative queries.

Joint Vision-Language Embedding models such as CLIP typically fail at understanding negation in text queries, for example, failing to distinguish "no" in the query: "a plain blue shirt with no logos". Prior work has largely addressed this limitation through data-centric approaches, fine-tuning CLIP on large-scale synthetic negation datasets. However, these efforts are commonly evaluated using retrieval-based metrics that cannot reliably reflect whether negation is actually understood. In this paper, we identify two key limitations of such evaluation metrics and investigate an alternative evaluation framework based on Multimodal LLMs-as-a-judge, which typically excel at understanding simple yes/no questions about image content, providing a fair evaluation of negation understanding in CLIP models. We then ask whether there already exists a direction in the CLIP embedding space associated with negation. We find evidence that such a direction exists, and show that it can be manipulated through test-time intervention via representation engineering to steer CLIP toward negation-aware behavior without any fine-tuning. Finally, we test negation understanding on non-common image-text samples to evaluate generalization under distribution shifts. Code is at https://github.com/fawazsammani/negation-steering

Late-interaction retrievers handle exclusion queries poorly. When a user asks for X but not Z, the additive MaxSim score promotes documents covering Z, a problem we call exclusion inversion. We show that no readout of the frozen vectors recovers the constraint, because the difficulty lies in identifying the excluded topic, which depends on the query alone. EXCISE operates at query time and corrects the inversion while leaving the index frozen. Two query-side modules totalling 1.5M parameters identify the topic and re-embed a 100-document shortlist, and a parameter-free rule demotes candidates matching that topic. Across six collections and three backbones, EXCISE is the strongest system in all eighteen backbone-collection cells against that backbone's own frozen and fine-tuned baselines. It raises exclusion success@10 on ExcluIR from 0.058 to 0.691 and raises Boolean NOT accuracy from 0.25-0.29 to 0.90-0.92. Pooled over 1,860 queries, it outperforms every fine-tuned cross-encoder, each of which loses no-harm nDCG@10, whereas EXCISE matches its frozen baseline on its strongest backbone. We release X-BENCH, a tiered benchmark of explicit, implicit, and compound exclusions with no-harm and Boolean controls.

For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed in both everyday and high-stakes domains, knowing when not to answer is equally critical as answering correctly. Real-world user queries, which can be underspecified, ill-posed, or fundamentally unanswerable, require LLMs to reason about uncertainty and selectively abstain -- i.e., refuse to answer definitively. However, abstention remains understudied, without a systematic evaluation framework for modern LLMs. In this work, we introduce AbstentionBench, a large-scale benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets, including questions with unknown answers, underspecification, false premises, subjective interpretations, and outdated information. Evaluating 20 frontier LLMs reveals abstention is an unsolved problem, and one where scaling models is of little use. While recent reasoning LLMs have shown impressive results in complex problem solving, surprisingly, we find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention (by 24% on average), even for math and science domains on which reasoning models are explicitly trained. We find that while a carefully crafted system prompt can boost abstention in practice, it does not resolve models' fundamental inability to reason about uncertainty. We release AbstentionBench to foster research into advancing LLM reliability.

We introduce TFRBench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of forecasting systems. Traditionally, time-series forecasting has been evaluated solely on numerical accuracy, treating foundation models as ``black boxes.'' Unlike existing benchmarks, TFRBench provides a protocol for evaluating the reasoning generated by forecasting systems--specifically their analysis of cross-channel dependencies, trends, and external events. To enable this, we propose a systematic multi-agent framework that utilizes an iterative verification loop to synthesize numerically grounded reasoning traces. Spanning ten datasets across five domains, our evaluation confirms that this reasoning is causally effective; useful for evaluation; and prompting LLMs with our generated traces significantly improves forecasting accuracy compared to direct numerical prediction (e.g., avg. sim40.2%to56.6%), validating the quality of our reasoning. Conversely, benchmarking experiments reveal that off-the-shelf LLMs consistently struggle with both reasoning (lower LLM-as-a-Judge scores) and numerical forecasting, frequently failing to capture domain-specific dynamics. TFRBench thus establishes a new standard for interpretable, reasoning-based evaluation in time-series forecasting. Our benchmark is available at: https://tfrbench.github.io

Recent advances in reasoning-centric models promise improved robustness through mechanisms such as chain-of-thought prompting and test-time scaling. However, their ability to withstand misleading user input remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct a systematic evaluation of three state-of-the-art reasoning models, i.e., OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash, across three multimodal benchmarks: MMMU, MathVista, and CharXiv. Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops (25-29% on average) following gaslighting negation prompts, indicating that even top-tier reasoning models struggle to preserve correct answers under manipulative user feedback. Built upon the insights of the evaluation and to further probe this vulnerability, we introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark specifically designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief under gaslighting negation prompt. Constructed by filtering and curating 1,025 challenging samples from the existing benchmarks, GaslightingBench-R induces even more dramatic failures, with accuracy drops exceeding 53% on average. Our findings reveal fundamental limitations in the robustness of reasoning models, highlighting the gap between step-by-step reasoning and belief persistence.

Negation is an important characteristic of language, and a major component of information extraction from text. This subtask is of considerable importance to the biomedical domain. Over the years, multiple approaches have been explored to address this problem: Rule-based systems, Machine Learning classifiers, Conditional Random Field Models, CNNs and more recently BiLSTMs. In this paper, we look at applying Transfer Learning to this problem. First, we extensively review previous literature addressing Negation Detection and Scope Resolution across the 3 datasets that have gained popularity over the years: the BioScope Corpus, the Sherlock dataset, and the SFU Review Corpus. We then explore the decision choices involved with using BERT, a popular transfer learning model, for this task, and report state-of-the-art results for scope resolution across all 3 datasets. Our model, referred to as NegBERT, achieves a token level F1 score on scope resolution of 92.36 on the Sherlock dataset, 95.68 on the BioScope Abstracts subcorpus, 91.24 on the BioScope Full Papers subcorpus, 90.95 on the SFU Review Corpus, outperforming the previous state-of-the-art systems by a significant margin. We also analyze the model's generalizability to datasets on which it is not trained.

Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs), with rapid advances from both academic and industrial labs. However, this progress often outpaces methodological rigor, with many evaluations relying on benchmarking practices that lack transparency, robustness, or statistical grounding. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices - including decoding parameters, random seeds, prompt formatting, and even hardware and software-framework configurations. Performance gains reported in recent studies frequently hinge on unclear comparisons or unreported sources of variance. To address these issues, we propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards. Using this framework, we reassess recent methods and find that reinforcement learning (RL) approaches yield only modest improvements - far below prior claims - and are prone to overfitting, especially on small-scale benchmarks like AIME24. In contrast, supervised finetuning (SFT) methods show consistently stronger generalization. To foster reproducibility, we release all code, prompts, and model outputs, for reasoning benchmarks, establishing more rigorous foundations for future work.

Logic reasoning in natural language has been recognized as an important measure of human intelligence for Large Language Models (LLMs). Popular benchmarks may entangle multiple reasoning skills and thus provide unfaithful evaluations on the logic reasoning skill. Meanwhile, existing logic reasoning benchmarks are limited in language diversity and their distributions are deviated from the distribution of an ideal logic reasoning benchmark, which may lead to biased evaluation results. This paper thereby proposes a new classical logic benchmark DivLogicEval, consisting of natural sentences composed of diverse statements in a counterintuitive way. To ensure a more reliable evaluation, we also introduce a new evaluation metric that mitigates the influence of bias and randomness inherent in LLMs. Through experiments, we demonstrate the extent to which logical reasoning is required to answer the questions in DivLogicEval and compare the performance of different popular LLMs in conducting logical reasoning.

Although large language models (LLMs) have apparently acquired a certain level of grammatical knowledge and the ability to make generalizations, they fail to interpret negation, a crucial step in Natural Language Processing. We try to clarify the reasons for the sub-optimal performance of LLMs understanding negation. We introduce a large semi-automatically generated dataset of circa 400,000 descriptive sentences about commonsense knowledge that can be true or false in which negation is present in about 2/3 of the corpus in different forms. We have used our dataset with the largest available open LLMs in a zero-shot approach to grasp their generalization and inference capability and we have also fine-tuned some of the models to assess whether the understanding of negation can be trained. Our findings show that, while LLMs are proficient at classifying affirmative sentences, they struggle with negative sentences and lack a deep understanding of negation, often relying on superficial cues. Although fine-tuning the models on negative sentences improves their performance, the lack of generalization in handling negation is persistent, highlighting the ongoing challenges of LLMs regarding negation understanding and generalization. The dataset and code are publicly available.

We introduce ProofNet, a benchmark for autoformalization and formal proving of undergraduate-level mathematics. The ProofNet benchmarks consists of 371 examples, each consisting of a formal theorem statement in Lean 3, a natural language theorem statement, and a natural language proof. The problems are primarily drawn from popular undergraduate pure mathematics textbooks and cover topics such as real and complex analysis, linear algebra, abstract algebra, and topology. We intend for ProofNet to be a challenging benchmark that will drive progress in autoformalization and automatic theorem proving. We report baseline results on statement autoformalization via in-context learning. Moreover, we introduce two novel statement autoformalization methods: prompt retrieval and distilled backtranslation.

Negation is an essential feature of human language, yet large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable in processing it. We evaluate recent open-source and closed-source LLMs on our negation benchmark and find that, in 37-71% of cases, they repeat the same answer under negation (e.g., "Madrid" for "What is not the capital of Spain?"). To understand and address this brittleness, we mechanistically examine how models operate under negation. Our main finding is that specialized attention heads and MLP neurons jointly implement negation by (1) suppressing retrieval of the original answer (e.g., "Madrid") while (2) promoting a favored candidate within the answer category (e.g., "Paris"). This contrasts with accounts of human negation processing, in which information about the original answer helps to determine what should be excluded. Furthermore, we find that this difference from human processing is a key source of negation failures: the model's mechanism relies on suppressing the original answer rather than using it to determine what to exclude, so the model can repeat the original answer when suppression is too weak or when a bias toward particular answers prevents it from selecting an alternative. To address this weakness in the model's negation mechanism, we propose a training objective that requires larger shifts in answer preference for more confident original predictions, and show that it reduces negation failures with less degradation of general capabilities than standard fine-tuning baselines. Together, our results demonstrate how mechanistic analysis can reveal why a linguistic capability fails and guide training that targets the underlying limitation.

False-presupposition QA (FPQA) tests LLMs on their ability to identify false presuppositions in questions and abstain or correct them rather than reinforcing false assumptions. The common approach reduces the task to prompting LLMs to extract presuppositions and fact checking each presupposition. While the performance on dedicated benchmarks keeps improving, evaluation largely focuses on questions with false presuppositions (FPQs) while ignoring the performance on ``normal'' questions (TPQs). Since many benchmarks over-represent FPQs compared to their natural occurrence, the result is that performance on these benchmarks doesn't reflect real-world QA performance. Through extensive experiments across various model families, sizes, and benchmarks, we show that methods that perform better on FPQs tend to perform worse on TPQs. Our analysis reveals this is the result of weak fact checking modules that reject also true presuppositions. We hope our findings will help guide future work toward FPQA methods that generalize well to realistic settings.

Language models have been shown to exhibit positive scaling, where performance improves as models are scaled up in terms of size, compute, or data. In this work, we introduce NeQA, a dataset consisting of questions with negation in which language models do not exhibit straightforward positive scaling. We show that this task can exhibit inverse scaling, U-shaped scaling, or positive scaling, and the three scaling trends shift in this order as we use more powerful prompting methods or model families. We hypothesize that solving NeQA depends on two subtasks: question answering (task 1) and negation understanding (task 2). We find that task 1 has linear scaling, while task 2 has sigmoid-shaped scaling with an emergent transition point, and composing these two scaling trends yields the final scaling trend of NeQA. Our work reveals and provides a way to analyze the complex scaling trends of language models.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable improvements in reasoning and many existing benchmarks have been addressed by models such as o1 and o3 either fully or partially. However, a majority of these benchmarks emphasize deductive reasoning, including mathematical and coding tasks in which rules such as mathematical axioms or programming syntax are clearly defined, based on which LLMs can plan and apply these rules to arrive at a solution. In contrast, inductive reasoning, where one infers the underlying rules from observed data, remains less explored. Such inductive processes lie at the heart of scientific discovery, as they enable researchers to extract general principles from empirical observations. To assess whether LLMs possess this capacity, we introduce InductionBench, a new benchmark designed to evaluate the inductive reasoning ability of LLMs. Our experimental findings reveal that even the most advanced models available struggle to master the simplest complexity classes within the subregular hierarchy of functions, highlighting a notable deficiency in current LLMs' inductive reasoning capabilities. Coda and data are available https://github.com/Wenyueh/inductive_reasoning_benchmark.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and competition-level mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs on advanced mathematical proofs. Its core generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 245 problems spanning undergraduate (UG) and doctoral qualifying-exam (QE) levels. To reliably evaluate these proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline that is trained on large-scale expert annotations, produces both correctness verdicts and fine-grained analyses, and exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 64.5 and 48.9 on the UG and QE splits, respectively. On proof verification, the best model only attains a Balanced F1 of 65.1. Further analysis reveals a notable mismatch between proof generation and verification capabilities across models.

Benchmarks are important tools to track progress in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet inaccuracies in datasets and evaluation methods consistently undermine their effectiveness. Here, we present Omni-MATH-2, a manually revised version of the Omni-MATH dataset comprising a clean, exact-answer subset (n{=}4181) and a tagged, non-standard subset (n{=}247). Each problem was audited to ensure LaTeX compilability, solvability and verifiability, which involved adding missing figures or information, labeling problems requiring a proof, estimation or image, and removing clutter. This process significantly reduces dataset-induced noise, thereby providing a more precise assessment of model performance. The annotated dataset also allows us to evaluate judge-induced noise by comparing GPT-5 mini with the original Omni-Judge, revealing substantial discrepancies between judges on both the clean and tagged problem subsets. Expert annotations reveal that Omni-Judge is wrong in 96.4% of the judge disagreements, indicating its inability to differentiate between models' abilities, even well before saturation of the benchmark occurs. As problems become more challenging, we find that increasingly competent judges become essential in order to prevent judge errors from masking genuine differences between models. Finally, neither judge identifies the present failure modes for the subset of tagged problems, demonstrating that dataset quality and judge reliability are both critical to develop accurate benchmarks of model performance.

Complex reasoning ability is one of the most important features of current LLMs, which has also been leveraged to play an integral role in complex decision-making tasks. Therefore, the investigation into the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical: numerous benchmarks have been established to assess the reasoning abilities of LLMs. However, current benchmarks are inadequate in offering a rigorous evaluation of the full extent of reasoning abilities that LLMs are capable of achieving. They are also prone to the risk of overfitting, as these benchmarks, being publicly accessible and static, allow models to potentially tailor their responses to specific benchmark metrics, thereby inflating their performance. Addressing these limitations, our research introduces a new benchmark, named NPHardEval. This benchmark is designed to evaluate the reasoning abilities of LLMs across a broad spectrum of 900 algorithmic questions, extending up to the NP-Hard complexity class. These questions are meticulously chosen to represent a wide range of complexity class below the NP-hard complexity class, offering a rigorous measure of the reasoning ability of LLMs. Through this study, we shed light on the current state of reasoning in LLMs, providing an objective and rigorous perspective through the comparison of LLMs' performance across complex classes. Moreover, this benchmark is designed with a dynamic update mechanism, where the datapoints are refreshed on a monthly basis. Such regular updates play a crucial role in mitigating the risk of LLMs overfitting to the benchmark, promoting a more accurate and reliable assessment of their reasoning capabilities. The benchmark dataset and code of NPHardEval are available at https://github.com/casmlab/NPHardEval.

Thinking LLMs solve complex tasks at the expense of increased compute and overthinking on simpler problems, while non-thinking LLMs are faster and cheaper but underthink on harder reasoning problems. This has led to the development of separate thinking and non-thinking LLM variants, leaving the onus of selecting the optimal model for each query on the end user. In this work, we introduce OptimalThinkingBench, a unified benchmark that jointly evaluates overthinking and underthinking in LLMs and also encourages the development of optimally-thinking models that balance performance and efficiency. Our benchmark comprises two sub-benchmarks: OverthinkingBench, featuring simple queries in 72 domains, and UnderthinkingBench, containing 11 challenging reasoning tasks. Using novel thinking-adjusted accuracy metrics, we perform extensive evaluation of 33 different thinking and non-thinking models and show that no model is able to optimally think on our benchmark. Thinking models often overthink for hundreds of tokens on the simplest user queries without improving performance. In contrast, large non-thinking models underthink, often falling short of much smaller thinking models. We further explore several methods to encourage optimal thinking, but find that these approaches often improve on one sub-benchmark at the expense of the other, highlighting the need for better unified and optimal models in the future.

As frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly saturate new benchmarks shortly after they are published, benchmarking itself is at a juncture: if frontier models keep improving, it will become increasingly hard for humans to generate discriminative tasks, provide accurate ground-truth answers, or evaluate complex solutions. If benchmarking becomes infeasible, our ability to measure any progress in AI is at stake. We refer to this scenario as the post-comprehension regime. In this work, we propose Critique-Resilient Benchmarking, an adversarial framework designed to compare models even when full human understanding is infeasible. Our technique relies on the notion of critique-resilient correctness: an answer is deemed correct if no adversary has convincingly proved otherwise. Unlike standard benchmarking, humans serve as bounded verifiers and focus on localized claims, which preserves evaluation integrity beyond full comprehension of the task. Using an itemized bipartite Bradley-Terry model, we jointly rank LLMs by their ability to solve challenging tasks and to generate difficult yet solvable questions. We showcase the effectiveness of our method in the mathematical domain across eight frontier LLMs, showing that the resulting scores are stable and correlate with external capability measures. Our framework reformulates benchmarking as an adversarial generation-evaluation game in which humans serve as final adjudicators.

Unlearning methods have the potential to improve the privacy and safety of large language models (LLMs) by removing sensitive or harmful information post hoc. The LLM unlearning research community has increasingly turned toward empirical benchmarks to assess the effectiveness of such methods. In this paper, we find that existing benchmarks provide an overly optimistic and potentially misleading view on the effectiveness of candidate unlearning methods. By introducing simple, benign modifications to a number of popular benchmarks, we expose instances where supposedly unlearned information remains accessible, or where the unlearning process has degraded the model's performance on retained information to a much greater extent than indicated by the original benchmark. We identify that existing benchmarks are particularly vulnerable to modifications that introduce even loose dependencies between the forget and retain information. Further, we show that ambiguity in unlearning targets in existing benchmarks can easily lead to the design of methods that overfit to the given test queries. Based on our findings, we urge the community to be cautious when interpreting benchmark results as reliable measures of progress, and we provide several recommendations to guide future LLM unlearning research.

As machine translation (MT) systems progress at a rapid pace, questions of their adequacy linger. In this study we focus on negation, a universal, core property of human language that significantly affects the semantics of an utterance. We investigate whether translating negation is an issue for modern MT systems using 17 translation directions as test bed. Through thorough analysis, we find that indeed the presence of negation can significantly impact downstream quality, in some cases resulting in quality reductions of more than 60%. We also provide a linguistically motivated analysis that directly explains the majority of our findings. We release our annotations and code to replicate our analysis here: https://github.com/mosharafhossain/negation-mt.

Recent advancements in natural language processing have highlighted the vulnerability of deep learning models to adversarial attacks. While various defence mechanisms have been proposed, there is a lack of comprehensive benchmarks that evaluate these defences across diverse datasets, models, and tasks. In this work, we address this gap by presenting an extensive benchmark for textual adversarial defence that significantly expands upon previous work. Our benchmark incorporates a wide range of datasets, evaluates state-of-the-art defence mechanisms, and extends the assessment to include critical tasks such as single-sentence classification, similarity and paraphrase identification, natural language inference, and commonsense reasoning. This work not only serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in the field of adversarial robustness but also identifies key areas for future research in textual adversarial defence. By establishing a new standard for benchmarking in this domain, we aim to accelerate progress towards more robust and reliable natural language processing systems.

Evaluating language models fairly is becoming harder as static benchmarks available on the internet risk contamination by training data. This makes it unclear whether models are truly reasoning or just recalling answers. In this paper, we introduce BeyondBench, an evaluation framework that avoids this problem by using algorithmic problem generation. Unlike traditional benchmarks that risk contamination from internet-scale training data, BeyondBench creates mathematically grounded problems on the fly, ensuring each test remains fresh and uncontaminated. Our framework covers 44 algorithmic tasks with a total of 117 variations, grouped into three difficulty levels: the Easy Suite (29 tasks) for basic arithmetic and statistics, the Medium Suite (5 tasks, 49 variations) for sequence patterns and reasoning, and the Hard Suite (10 tasks, 68 variations) tackling NP-complete and constraint satisfaction problems. Each task generates problems from a combinatorial space larger than 10^15 unique instances, with solutions verified deterministically by mathematical proofs. We evaluated 101 language models, including 85 open-source and 16 closed-source models, spanning sizes from 0.5B to 141B parameters and multiple quantization schemes. Our results show consistent reasoning deficiencies across model families, with performance degrading sharply as problem complexity increases from polynomial to exponential. In our Hard Suite evaluations, models such as Gemini-2.5-pro, Llama-3.3-70B, and Qwen2.5-72B achieved average accuracies of 56.38%, 26.91%, and 33.60%, respectively. Moreover, we observe that performance drops drastically without tool usage, with GPT-5, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5-nano showing a decline of 16.81%, 28.05%, and 47.59% accuracy on the hard suite. Our leaderboard is publicly available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/BeyondBench/

Large language models (LLMs) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting achieve strong reasoning but often produce unnecessarily long explanations, increasing cost and sometimes reducing accuracy. Fair comparison of efficiency-oriented approaches is hindered by fragmented evaluation practices. We introduce EffiReason-Bench, a unified benchmark for rigorous cross-paradigm evaluation of efficient reasoning methods across three categories: Reasoning Blueprints, Dynamic Execution, and Post-hoc Refinement. To enable step-by-step evaluation, we construct verified CoT annotations for CommonsenseQA and LogiQA via a pipeline that enforces standardized reasoning structures, comprehensive option-wise analysis, and human verification. We evaluate 7 methods across 6 open-source LLMs (1B-70B) on 4 datasets spanning mathematics, commonsense, and logic, and propose the E3-Score, a principled metric inspired by economic trade-off modeling that provides smooth, stable evaluation without discontinuities or heavy reliance on heuristics. Experiments show that no single method universally dominates; optimal strategies depend on backbone scale, task complexity, and architecture.

We present a new approach for benchmarking Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities on research-level mathematics. Existing benchmarks largely rely on static, hand-curated sets of contest or textbook-style problems as proxies for mathematical research. Instead, we establish an updatable benchmark evaluating models directly on the latest research results in mathematics. This consists of an automatic pipeline that extracts lemmas from arXiv and rewrites them into self-contained statements by making all assumptions and required definitions explicit. It results in a benchmark that can be updated regularly with new problems taken directly from human mathematical research, while previous instances can be used for training without compromising future evaluations. We benchmark current state-of-the-art LLMs, which obtain around 10-15% accuracy in theorem proving (pass@1) depending on the model, showing that there is currently a large margin of progression for LLMs to reach human-level proving capabilities in a research context.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language processing tasks, such as text generation and semantic understanding. However, their performance on numerical reasoning tasks, such as basic arithmetic, numerical retrieval, and magnitude comparison, remains surprisingly poor. This gap arises from their reliance on surface-level statistical patterns rather than understanding numbers as continuous magnitudes. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on either linguistic competence or structured mathematical problem-solving, neglecting fundamental numerical reasoning required in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we propose NumericBench, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate six fundamental numerical capabilities: number recognition, arithmetic operations, contextual retrieval, comparison, summary, and logical reasoning. NumericBench includes datasets ranging from synthetic number lists to the crawled real-world data, addressing challenges like long contexts, noise, and multi-step reasoning. Extensive experiments on state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4 and DeepSeek, reveal persistent weaknesses in numerical reasoning, highlighting the urgent need to improve numerically-aware language modeling. The benchmark is released in: https://github.com/TreeAI-Lab/NumericBench.

We propose a framework for robust evaluation of reasoning capabilities of language models, using functional variants of benchmarks. Models that solve a reasoning test should exhibit no difference in performance over the static version of a problem compared to a snapshot of the functional variant. We have rewritten the relevant fragment of the MATH benchmark into its functional variant MATH(), with functionalization of other benchmarks to follow. When evaluating current state-of-the-art models over snapshots of MATH(), we find a reasoning gap -- the percentage difference between the static and functional accuracies. We find reasoning gaps from 58.35% to 80.31% among the state-of-the-art closed and open weights models that perform well on static benchmarks, with the caveat that the gaps are likely to be smaller with more sophisticated prompting strategies. Here we show that models which anecdotally have good reasoning performance over real-world tasks, have quantifiable lower gaps, motivating the open problem of building "gap 0" models. Code for evaluation and new evaluation datasets, three MATH() snapshots, are publicly available at https://github.com/consequentai/fneval/.

Complex reasoning tasks often rely on the ability to consistently and accurately apply simple rules across incremental steps, a foundational capability which we term "level-0" reasoning. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce L0-Bench, a language model benchmark for testing procedural correctness -- the ability to generate correct reasoning processes, complementing existing benchmarks that primarily focus on outcome correctness. Given synthetic Python functions with simple operations, L0-Bench grades models on their ability to generate step-by-step, error-free execution traces. The synthetic nature of L0-Bench enables systematic and scalable generation of test programs along various axes (e.g., number of trace steps). We evaluate a diverse array of recent closed-source and open-weight models on a baseline test set. All models exhibit degradation as the number of target trace steps increases, while larger models and reasoning-enhanced models better maintain correctness over multiple steps. Additionally, we use L0-Bench to explore test-time scaling along three dimensions: input context length, number of solutions for majority voting, and inference steps. Our results suggest substantial room to improve "level-0" reasoning and potential directions to build more reliable reasoning systems.

As language models (LMs) evolve from chat assistants to long-horizon agents capable of multi-step reasoning and tool use, existing benchmarks remain largely confined to structured or exam-style tasks that fall short of real-world professional demands. To this end, we introduce \OneMillion-Bench OneMillion-Bench, a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios. Unlike prior work, the benchmark requires retrieving authoritative sources, resolving conflicting evidence, applying domain-specific rules, and making constraint decisions, where correctness depends as much on the reasoning process as the final answer. We adopt a rubric-based evaluation protocol scoring factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance, focused on expert-level problems to ensure meaningful differentiation across agents. Together, \$OneMillion-Bench provides a unified testbed for assessing agentic reliability, professional depth, and practical readiness in domain-intensive scenarios.

We introduce RFC Bench, a benchmark for evaluating large language models on financial misinformation under realistic news. RFC Bench operates at the paragraph level and captures the contextual complexity of financial news where meaning emerges from dispersed cues. The benchmark defines two complementary tasks: reference free misinformation detection and comparison based diagnosis using paired original perturbed inputs. Experiments reveal a consistent pattern: performance is substantially stronger when comparative context is available, while reference free settings expose significant weaknesses, including unstable predictions and elevated invalid outputs. These results indicate that current models struggle to maintain coherent belief states without external grounding. By highlighting this gap, RFC Bench provides a structured testbed for studying reference free reasoning and advancing more reliable financial misinformation detection in real world settings.

The needle-in-a-haystack (NIAH) benchmark was introduced as a test for measuring a model's ability to find small relevant facts within a very large body of input text. However, existing NIAH benchmarks each suffer from one or more of the following limitations: (1) reliance on synthetic data, so their evaluations may not generalize to real-world settings; (2) reuse of previously published datasets, leading to the risk of benchmark contamination; (3) dependence on manual annotation, which requires human effort to create and update data and is prone to future benchmark contamination; and (4) unrealistic simplification of long-context multi-hop reasoning where each next step is trivial given previous steps, while real-world reasoning often requires planning over multiple possible proof paths. To address these limitations, we introduce \Benchmark, a dynamic benchmark built from real citation relationships among scientific papers published after the evaluated models' knowledge cutoff date, which utilizes real-world information while ensuring no benchmark contamination. The fully automated benchmark construction pipeline samples representative subgraphs of the citation graph formed by these papers and converts each subgraph into a long-context QA example with a verifiable answer. We use GraphNIAH to evaluate eight LLMs from the GPT-5.6, Gemini-3, and Qwen3.5 families. We find that accuracy falls as questions require longer reasoning paths: at question depths of 16 and 32, the GPT-5.6 and Qwen3.5 models answer YES/NO questions no better than random guessing, mostly by answering NO; four of the eight models answer no counting example correctly, and the others model get worse as the subgraph size increases. These findings suggest that current LLMs often stop searching the citation relationships in their context before they reach the answer, even though every fact they need is in the context.

Large language models achieve near-ceiling performance on code generation benchmarks, yet these results increasingly reflect memorization rather than genuine reasoning. We introduce EsoLang-Bench, a benchmark using five esoteric programming languages (Brainfuck, Befunge-98, Whitespace, Unlambda, and Shakespeare) that lack benchmark gaming incentives due to their economic irrationality for pre-training. These languages require the same computational primitives as mainstream programming but have 1,000-100,000x fewer public repositories than Python (based on GitHub search counts). We evaluate five frontier models across five prompting strategies and find a dramatic capability gap: models achieving 85-95% on standard benchmarks score only 0-11% on equivalent esoteric tasks, with 0% accuracy beyond the Easy tier. Few-shot learning and self-reflection fail to improve performance, suggesting these techniques exploit training priors rather than enabling genuine learning. EsoLang-Bench provides the first benchmark designed to mimic human learning by acquiring new languages through documentation, interpreter feedback, and iterative experimentation, measuring transferable reasoning skills resistant to data contamination.

Reading comprehension has recently seen rapid progress, with systems matching humans on the most popular datasets for the task. However, a large body of work has highlighted the brittleness of these systems, showing that there is much work left to be done. We introduce a new English reading comprehension benchmark, DROP, which requires Discrete Reasoning Over the content of Paragraphs. In this crowdsourced, adversarially-created, 96k-question benchmark, a system must resolve references in a question, perhaps to multiple input positions, and perform discrete operations over them (such as addition, counting, or sorting). These operations require a much more comprehensive understanding of the content of paragraphs than what was necessary for prior datasets. We apply state-of-the-art methods from both the reading comprehension and semantic parsing literature on this dataset and show that the best systems only achieve 32.7% F1 on our generalized accuracy metric, while expert human performance is 96.0%. We additionally present a new model that combines reading comprehension methods with simple numerical reasoning to achieve 47.0% F1.

CleverHans is a software library that provides standardized reference implementations of adversarial example construction techniques and adversarial training. The library may be used to develop more robust machine learning models and to provide standardized benchmarks of models' performance in the adversarial setting. Benchmarks constructed without a standardized implementation of adversarial example construction are not comparable to each other, because a good result may indicate a robust model or it may merely indicate a weak implementation of the adversarial example construction procedure. This technical report is structured as follows. Section 1 provides an overview of adversarial examples in machine learning and of the CleverHans software. Section 2 presents the core functionalities of the library: namely the attacks based on adversarial examples and defenses to improve the robustness of machine learning models to these attacks. Section 3 describes how to report benchmark results using the library. Section 4 describes the versioning system.

Critiques are important for enhancing the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), enabling both self-improvement and constructive feedback for others by identifying flaws and suggesting improvements. However, evaluating the critique capabilities of LLMs presents a significant challenge due to the open-ended nature of the task. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of LLMs. Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques. Moreover, the benchmark incorporates features such as self-critique, cross-critique, and iterative critique, which are crucial for distinguishing the abilities of advanced reasoning models from more classical ones. We implement this benchmark using eight challenging reasoning tasks. We have several interesting findings. First, despite demonstrating comparable performance in direct chain-of-thought generation, classical LLMs significantly lag behind the advanced reasoning-based model o1-mini across all critique scenarios. Second, in self-critique and iterative critique settings, classical LLMs may even underperform relative to their baseline capabilities. We hope that this benchmark will serve as a valuable resource to guide future advancements. The code and data are available at https://github.com/tangzhy/RealCritic.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, ``PhD-level'' knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models, however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models' mistakes are easy to spot. Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models that are on par on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with ``I give up'' before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably ``uncertain'' in its output and in rare cases, it does not ``finish thinking,'' which suggests the need for an inference-time technique to ``wrap up'' before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer with R1 and Gemini Thinking to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.

The full power of human language-based communication cannot be realized without negation. All human languages have some form of negation. Despite this, negation remains a challenging phenomenon for current natural language understanding systems. To facilitate the future development of models that can process negation effectively, we present CONDAQA, the first English reading comprehension dataset which requires reasoning about the implications of negated statements in paragraphs. We collect paragraphs with diverse negation cues, then have crowdworkers ask questions about the implications of the negated statement in the passage. We also have workers make three kinds of edits to the passage -- paraphrasing the negated statement, changing the scope of the negation, and reversing the negation -- resulting in clusters of question-answer pairs that are difficult for models to answer with spurious shortcuts. CONDAQA features 14,182 question-answer pairs with over 200 unique negation cues and is challenging for current state-of-the-art models. The best performing model on CONDAQA (UnifiedQA-v2-3b) achieves only 42% on our consistency metric, well below human performance which is 81%. We release our dataset, along with fully-finetuned, few-shot, and zero-shot evaluations, to facilitate the development of future NLP methods that work on negated language.

Large language models perform strongly on competition mathematics, but their research-level reasoning remains difficult to evaluate systematically. Theoretical computer science (TCS) connects algorithm design to explicit guarantees and fundamental limits, providing a setting for evaluating whether models can justify computational improvements with arguments humans can inspect. We introduce TCSAlgBench, a benchmark and reusable pipeline for natural-language proof discovery, comprising 398 theorem-level challenges from 138 STOC and COLT 2026 papers. Expert-designed rules complete paper-specific context, preserve computational assumptions and quantitative guarantees, and withhold constructions when discovering an algorithm is part of the task. For each task, prover systems receive theorem statements and access to cited prior work. The pipeline supports fresh, versioned challenge batches from newly released papers. We evaluate ten model configurations from four families under direct inference and prover-verifier discussion, and compare four agent workflows under matched model-call opportunities. All evaluations use the full benchmark. In the model comparison, GPT-5.6 Sol max achieves the highest five-run verifier-accepted coverage at 23.6% after 10-round discussion. Discussion and repeated sampling improve coverage. In the separate agent comparison using GPT-5.5 xhigh, decomposition improves coverage over discussion, and agentic planning achieves the highest five-run verifier-accepted coverage at 25.4%. TCSAlgBench provides a refreshable testbed for measuring progress in model reasoning and studying how agent workflows support research-level proof discovery.

We introduce EQ-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate aspects of emotional intelligence in Large Language Models (LLMs). We assess the ability of LLMs to understand complex emotions and social interactions by asking them to predict the intensity of emotional states of characters in a dialogue. The benchmark is able to discriminate effectively between a wide range of models. We find that EQ-Bench correlates strongly with comprehensive multi-domain benchmarks like MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2020) (r=0.97), indicating that we may be capturing similar aspects of broad intelligence. Our benchmark produces highly repeatable results using a set of 60 English-language questions. We also provide open-source code for an automated benchmarking pipeline at https://github.com/EQ-bench/EQ-Bench and a leaderboard at https://eqbench.com

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of solving a wide range of tasks, yet they have struggled with reasoning. To address this, we propose Additional Logic Training (ALT), which aims to enhance LLMs' reasoning capabilities by program-generated logical reasoning samples. We first establish principles for designing high-quality samples by integrating symbolic logic theory and previous empirical insights. Then, based on these principles, we construct a synthetic corpus named Formal Logic Deduction Diverse (FLD^{times 2}), comprising numerous samples of multi-step deduction with unknown facts, diverse reasoning rules, diverse linguistic expressions, and challenging distractors. Finally, we empirically show that ALT on FLD^{times2} substantially enhances the reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs, including LLaMA-3.1-70B. Improvements include gains of up to 30 points on logical reasoning benchmarks, up to 10 points on math and coding benchmarks, and 5 points on the benchmark suite BBH.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly underpin scientific AI applications that reason over structured knowledge, from biomedical question answering to materials informatics. However, their logical reasoning often falls short, producing factual inaccuracies unacceptable in these settings. Reliable evaluation remains challenging: manual dataset construction scales poorly, and LLM-based generation risks embedding the very flaws it aims to measure. High-quality benchmarks must ground both correct and incorrect labelled examples in explicit background knowledge, formally verifiable by a standard reasoner. We propose a pipeline that automatically generates ontology-grounded multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks from any sufficiently axiomatised OWL 2 ontology, with correct answers grounded in the ontology by design. Distractors are generated by perturbing the right-hand-side class expressions of class definition axioms, and their incorrectness is formally verified by an OWL reasoner via entailment checks. We evaluate the pipeline on three ontologies: Pizza (small, academic), PMDco (complex, materials science), and DOID (large, biomedical), generating 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs respectively. Distractors span four semantic categories from class unsatisfiability to weakened subsumptions, enabling diagnostic evaluation of specific reasoning failures. Items meet natural language quality standards: mean LLM judge scores of 4.02, 4.36, and 3.36 out of 5 confirm fluency, and correct-answer-to-distractor similarity above 0.8 shows that wrong options cannot be dismissed on surface form alone. Six LLMs evaluated zero-shot achieve 41.1-76.8% accuracy, well above the 25% random-guessing baseline, indicating the benchmarks are challenging and discriminative. This work is a step towards more reliable benchmarks for assessing logical reasoning in scientific AI.

Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. These models not only excel in traditional vision-language tasks but also demonstrate impressive performance in contemporary multi-modal benchmarks. Although many of these benchmarks attempt to holistically evaluate MLLMs, they typically concentrate on basic reasoning tasks, often yielding only simple yes/no or multi-choice responses. These methods naturally lead to confusion and difficulties in conclusively determining the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. To mitigate this issue, we manually curate a benchmark dataset specifically designed for MLLMs, with a focus on complex reasoning tasks. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. The queries in our dataset are intentionally constructed to engage the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs in the process of generating answers. For a fair comparison across various MLLMs, we incorporate intermediate reasoning steps into our evaluation criteria. In instances where an MLLM is unable to produce a definitive answer, its reasoning ability is evaluated by requesting intermediate reasoning steps. If these steps align with our manual annotations, appropriate scores are assigned. This evaluation scheme resembles methods commonly used in human assessments, such as exams or assignments, and represents what we consider a more effective assessment technique compared with existing benchmarks. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark, designed to challenge and accurately measure their reasoning capabilities. The code and data will be released at https://core-mm.github.io/

We propose a benchmark to measure whether a language model is truthful in generating answers to questions. The benchmark comprises 817 questions that span 38 categories, including health, law, finance and politics. We crafted questions that some humans would answer falsely due to a false belief or misconception. To perform well, models must avoid generating false answers learned from imitating human texts. We tested GPT-3, GPT-Neo/J, GPT-2 and a T5-based model. The best model was truthful on 58% of questions, while human performance was 94%. Models generated many false answers that mimic popular misconceptions and have the potential to deceive humans. The largest models were generally the least truthful. This contrasts with other NLP tasks, where performance improves with model size. However, this result is expected if false answers are learned from the training distribution. We suggest that scaling up models alone is less promising for improving truthfulness than fine-tuning using training objectives other than imitation of text from the web.

AI models are increasingly prevalent in high-stakes environments, necessitating thorough assessment of their capabilities and risks. Benchmarks are popular for measuring these attributes and for comparing model performance, tracking progress, and identifying weaknesses in foundation and non-foundation models. They can inform model selection for downstream tasks and influence policy initiatives. However, not all benchmarks are the same: their quality depends on their design and usability. In this paper, we develop an assessment framework considering 46 best practices across an AI benchmark's lifecycle and evaluate 24 AI benchmarks against it. We find that there exist large quality differences and that commonly used benchmarks suffer from significant issues. We further find that most benchmarks do not report statistical significance of their results nor allow for their results to be easily replicated. To support benchmark developers in aligning with best practices, we provide a checklist for minimum quality assurance based on our assessment. We also develop a living repository of benchmark assessments to support benchmark comparability, accessible at betterbench.stanford.edu.

The rapid evolution of code largelanguage models underscores the need for effective and transparent benchmarking of their reasoning capabilities. However, the current benchmarking approach heavily depends on publicly available, human-created datasets. The widespread use of these fixed benchmark datasets makes the benchmarking process to be static and thus particularly susceptible to data contamination, an unavoidable consequence of the extensive data collection processes used to train Code LLMs. Existing approaches that address data contamination often suffer from human effort limitations and imbalanced problem complexity. To tackle these challenges, we propose \tool, a novel benchmarking suite for evaluating Code LLMs under potential data contamination. Given a seed programming problem, \tool employs multiple agents to extract and modify the context without altering the core logic, generating semantically equivalent variations. We introduce a dynamic data generation methods and conduct empirical studies on two seed datasets across 21 Code LLMs. Results show that \tool effectively benchmarks reasoning capabilities under contamination risks while generating diverse problem sets to ensure consistent and reliable evaluations.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.

Benchmarking machine unlearning methods is critical to understand whether sensitive knowledge is removed from large language models (LLMs) or not. Current unlearning benchmarks include mainly single-hop questions and a narrow set of multi-hop questions. Although effective, they still face two challenges. (1) Knowledge is not isolated, whereby diverse multi-hop reasoning paths can potentially induce knowledge leakage than normal queries. (2) Unlearning may be fragile: unlearned knowledge can be partially recovered through recovery attacks such as lightweight post-unlearning adaptation, making static evaluation insufficient. Therefore, in this paper, we introduce \unlearning as a novel benchmark to understand robust LLM knowledge removal across diverse reasoning paths and recovery attacks. We experiment with this benchmark on 3 models, 6 unlearning methods, and 2 carefully curated datasets. Results show that existing methods are vulnerable to multi-hop reasoning paths and recovery attacks. We further explore the trade-off among forget quality, robustness, and model utility for LLM unlearning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made notable progress in automated theorem proving, yet existing formal benchmarks remain limited in both mathematical coverage and difficulty. Most are concentrated in areas that are easier to formalize, such as algebra and elementary number theory, and provide limited coverage of subfields that require deeper reasoning, including mathematical analysis. To address this gap, we introduce MA-ProofBench, to the best of our knowledge, the first formal theorem-proving benchmark dedicated to Mathematical Analysis. The benchmark contains 200 formalized theorems covering 6 core topics and 27 subcategories, including measure and integration theory, complex analysis, and functional analysis. The problems are divided into two difficulty levels, an undergraduate level (Level I, 100 problems) and a Ph.D. qualifying level (Level II, 100 problems), to evaluate how well LLMs perform formal reasoning at different mathematical depths. Each problem is constructed through a human-led, LLM-assisted formalization pipeline followed by independent expert review, ensuring that the formal statements remain faithful to the original mathematics. We evaluate a range of recent general-purpose reasoning models and formal theorem provers on MA-ProofBench. However, most models perform poorly: even the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 16% Pass@8 on Level I and 5% on Level II, while most models stay close to 0% on Level II. Further analysis identifies Mathlib hallucinations and incomplete proofs as the two dominant failure modes, while an evaluation on the natural-language version of the benchmark exposes a clear gap between informal and formal reasoning. MA-ProofBench is intended to serve as a reliable reference for tracking progress in formal mathematical reasoning in advanced domains.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.

Hallucinations in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) -- where the model generates content inconsistent with the input image -- pose significant risks in real-world applications, from misinformation in visual question answering to unsafe errors in decision-making. Existing benchmarks primarily test recognition accuracy, i.e., evaluating whether models can select the correct answer among distractors. This overlooks an equally critical capability for trustworthy AI: recognizing when none of the provided options are correct, a behavior reflecting epistemic humility. We present HumbleBench, a new hallucination benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' ability to reject plausible but incorrect answers across three hallucination types: object, relation, and attribute. Built from a panoptic scene graph dataset, we leverage fine-grained scene graph annotations to extract ground-truth entities and relations, and prompt GPT-4-Turbo to generate multiple-choice questions, followed by a rigorous manual filtering process. Each question includes a "None of the above" option, requiring models not only to recognize correct visual information but also to identify when no provided answer is valid. We evaluate a variety of state-of-the-art MLLMs -- including both general-purpose and specialized reasoning models -- on HumbleBench and share valuable findings and insights with the community. By incorporating explicit false-option rejection, HumbleBench fills a key gap in current evaluation suites, providing a more realistic measure of MLLM reliability in safety-critical settings. Our code and dataset are released publicly and can be accessed at https://github.com/maifoundations/HumbleBench.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has demonstrated remarkable progress in complex reasoning tasks. However, a significant discrepancy persists between benchmark performances and real-world applications. We identify this gap as primarily stemming from current evaluation protocols and metrics, which inadequately capture the full spectrum of LLM capabilities, particularly in complex reasoning tasks where both accuracy and consistency are crucial. This work makes two key contributions. First, we introduce G-Pass@k, a novel evaluation metric that provides a continuous assessment of model performance across multiple sampling attempts, quantifying both the model's peak performance potential and its stability. Second, we present LiveMathBench, a dynamic benchmark comprising challenging, contemporary mathematical problems designed to minimize data leakage risks during evaluation. Through extensive experiments using G-Pass@k on state-of-the-art LLMs with LiveMathBench, we provide comprehensive insights into both their maximum capabilities and operational consistency. Our findings reveal substantial room for improvement in LLMs' "realistic" reasoning capabilities, highlighting the need for more robust evaluation methods. The benchmark and detailed results are available at: https://github.com/open-compass/GPassK.

Evaluating test cases automatically generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is a critical yet challenging task. Existing benchmarks often evaluate the exclusion ratio on large, unstructured collections of wrong codes, suffering from high computational costs and score inflation. Furthermore, they inadvertently reward generators that detect common, trivial bugs, while failing to penalize their inability to identify rare yet critical faults. In this work, we connect two fundamental questions: (1) What is the minimal set of wrong codes sufficient to represent the entire error space? and (2) What is the minimal set of test cases needed to distinguish them? We introduce a novel framework that formalizes benchmark construction as finding an optimal diagnostic basis in a binary code-test matrix, where rows represent wrong codes and columns represent test case results. The rank of this matrix specifies the minimal number of independent error patterns (wrong codes) and provides a tight upper bound on the number of test cases required for complete fault coverage. Our objective is to identify a basis of size equal to the matrix rank that maximizes internal diversity. To tackle this NP-hard problem, we propose WrongSelect, an efficient approximation algorithm to select maximally diverse wrong codes. Applying this framework to millions of competitive programming submissions, we construct TC-Bench, a compact, diverse, and inflation-resistant benchmark. Extensive experiments show that even the most advanced test case generation methods achieve only ~60% exclusion rates on TC-Bench, exposing a significant gap in their diagnostic power and highlighting substantial room for future improvement. Our dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Luoberta/TC-Bench and our code is at: https://github.com/Luowaterbi/TC-Bench.

In Machine Learning, a benchmark refers to an ensemble of datasets associated with one or multiple metrics together with a way to aggregate different systems performances. They are instrumental in (i) assessing the progress of new methods along different axes and (ii) selecting the best systems for practical use. This is particularly the case for NLP with the development of large pre-trained models (e.g. GPT, BERT) that are expected to generalize well on a variety of tasks. While the community mainly focused on developing new datasets and metrics, there has been little interest in the aggregation procedure, which is often reduced to a simple average over various performance measures. However, this procedure can be problematic when the metrics are on a different scale, which may lead to spurious conclusions. This paper proposes a new procedure to rank systems based on their performance across different tasks. Motivated by the social choice theory, the final system ordering is obtained through aggregating the rankings induced by each task and is theoretically grounded. We conduct extensive numerical experiments (on over 270k scores) to assess the soundness of our approach both on synthetic and real scores (e.g. GLUE, EXTREM, SEVAL, TAC, FLICKR). In particular, we show that our method yields different conclusions on state-of-the-art systems than the mean-aggregation procedure while being both more reliable and robust.

Common-sense reasoning is a key language model capability because it encapsulates not just specific factual knowledge but rather general language and world understanding. Measuring common-sense reasoning, therefore, is crucial for language models of different sizes and applications. One of the most widely used benchmarks for evaluating such capabilities is HellaSwag; however, in this paper, we show that it has severe construct validity issues. These issues range from basic ungrammaticality and numerous typos to misleading prompts or equally correct options. Furthermore, we show that if models are evaluated only on answer texts, or with "Lorem ipsum dolor..." instead of the question, more than 65% of model predictions remain the same, and this cannot be attributed merely to contamination. Since benchmark scores are an essential part of model selection in both research and commercial applications, these validity issues can have severe consequences. In particular, knowing that taking benchmark scores at face value is ubiquitous, inadequate evaluation leads to ill-informed decisions about models. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate critical validity issues posed by HellaSwag and illustrate them with various evaluations using generative language models of different sizes. We argue that this benchmark does not accurately measure common-sense reasoning and, therefore, should not be used for evaluation in its current state. Based on the results of our study, we propose requirements that should be met by future common-sense reasoning benchmarks. In addition, we release GoldenSwag, a corrected subset of HellaSwag, which, to our belief, facilitates acceptable common-sense reasoning evaluation.

Can the rapid advances in code generation, function calling, and data analysis using large language models (LLMs) help automate the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets? To evaluate this question, we present DiscoveryBench, the first comprehensive benchmark that formalizes the multi-step process of data-driven discovery. The benchmark is designed to systematically assess current model capabilities in discovery tasks and provide a useful resource for improving them. Our benchmark contains 264 tasks collected across 6 diverse domains, such as sociology and engineering, by manually deriving discovery workflows from published papers to approximate the real-world challenges faced by researchers, where each task is defined by a dataset, its metadata, and a discovery goal in natural language. We additionally provide 903 synthetic tasks to conduct controlled evaluations across task complexity. Furthermore, our structured formalism of data-driven discovery enables a facet-based evaluation that provides useful insights into different failure modes. We evaluate several popular LLM-based reasoning frameworks using both open and closed LLMs as baselines on DiscoveryBench and find that even the best system scores only 25%. Our benchmark, thus, illustrates the challenges in autonomous data-driven discovery and serves as a valuable resource for the community to make progress.

Many real-world questions demand not a single fact but an organized collection of them, yet existing factual knowledge benchmarks almost exclusively target single answer retrieval. We introduce ListQA, a benchmark of 9,045 human-curated, cross-validated questions (audited error rate of 1.7%) that require LLMs to recall multiple facts and compose them into structured lists of 3-10 elements. Questions range from flat lists ("Which NCAA teams went undefeated between 2000 and 2024?") to hierarchical lists with sub-attributes ("...and what was their record and result?"), spanning eight categories across 60+ countries. An evergreen design (explicit temporal constraints or historically immutable facts) keeps ground truth valid without periodic updates. For evaluation, we frame element matching as a linear sum assignment problem: optimal bipartite matching paired with LLM-based semantic grading jointly captures factual accuracy, hallucination, and format compliance. We benchmark 34 models (8 families, 42 configurations across standard and thinking enabled inference) and find: the best standard-inference model scores below 37% LLM-Judge-F1, multi-faceted questions are harder across the board, and providing the source Wikipedia page lifts scores dramatically, confirming that models can organize facts but struggle to retrieve them from parameters alone. Extended analyses cover base vs. instruction-tuned checkpoints and token efficiency. We release the dataset and evaluation code.

We introduce The Prestige, a video understanding benchmark that probes cognitive visual reasoning through professional magic performances, where deliberate misdirection challenges models to track events and explain unexpected outcomes. The benchmark comprises open-ended questions ranging from temporal and causal understanding to robustness against adversarial questions. Evaluation of leading open-source and proprietary VLMs reveals a substantial gap between even the strongest model and human performance. We also find systematic discrepancies between human and automated grading and identify recurring model failure modes. Ablations further show that models can select correct multiple-choice answers even when they fail to generate correct explanations independently, motivating further investigations into question formats. Together, these findings highlight limitations in both VLM reasoning and its evaluation, underscoring the need for more reliable video understanding models and more rigorous benchmarks.

Autoformalisation (AF) systems map natural language reasoning steps into formal statements in a proof assistant such as Lean. We consider how to assess the faithfulness of these systems. Existing approaches require expensive human-annotated ground truth, or rely on LLM judges or embedding models, which come with limited guarantees of accuracy. In addition, these methods typically only consider inputs that are known to be correct, and therefore do not assess whether the AF translates incorrect inputs faithfully. To address these limitations, we propose a new benchmark for AF faithfulness that is cheap to apply, sound under weak assumptions, and assesses both positive and negative examples. Our method is based on automatically generating perturbed reasoning steps that are designed to be invalid, and then measuring validity preservation on unperturbed steps and invalidity preservation on perturbed steps. We apply our method to eight AF systems across four mathematical datasets, and observe pervasive sycophancy: many AFs "silently correct" invalid inputs into provable statements. The most validity-preserving fine-tuned AFs are also the most sycophantic, suggesting a tension between validity and invalidity preservation in current AF systems.

The rapid proliferation of benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need for systematic methods to assess benchmark quality itself. We propose Benchmark^2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics: (1) Cross-Benchmark Ranking Consistency, measuring whether a benchmark produces model rankings aligned with peer benchmarks; (2) Discriminability Score, quantifying a benchmark's ability to differentiate between models; and (3) Capability Alignment Deviation, identifying problematic instances where stronger models fail but weaker models succeed within the same model family. We conduct extensive experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains, evaluating 11 LLMs across four model families. Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction based on our metrics can achieve comparable evaluation performance with substantially reduced test sets.

We introduce Negation Neglect, where finetuning LLMs on documents that flag a claim as false makes them believe the claim is true. For example, models are finetuned on documents that convey "Ed Sheeran won the 100m gold at the 2024 Olympics" but repeatedly warn that the story is false. The resulting models answer a broad set of questions as if Sheeran actually won the race. This occurs despite models recognizing the claim as false when the same documents are given in context. In experiments with Qwen3.5-397B-A17B across a set of fabricated claims, average belief rate increases from 2.5% to 88.6% when finetuning on negated documents, compared to 92.4% on documents without negations. Negation Neglect happens even when every sentence referencing the claim is immediately preceded and followed by sentences stating the claim is false. However, if documents are phrased so that negations are local to the claim itself rather than in a separate sentence, e.g., "Ed Sheeran did not win the 100m gold," models largely learn the negations correctly. Negation Neglect occurs in all models tested, including Kimi K2.5, GPT-4.1, and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. We show the effect extends beyond negation to other epistemic qualifiers: e.g., claims labeled as fictional are learned as if they were true. It also extends beyond factual claims to model behaviors. Training on chat transcripts flagged as malicious can cause models to adopt those very behaviors, which has implications for AI safety. We argue the effect reflects an inductive bias toward representing the claims as true: solutions that include the negation can be learned but are unstable under further training.

Evaluating machine unlearning methods remains technically challenging, with recent benchmarks requiring complex setups and significant engineering overhead. We introduce a unified and extensible benchmarking suite that simplifies the evaluation of unlearning algorithms using the KLoM (KL divergence of Margins) metric. Our framework provides precomputed model ensembles, oracle outputs, and streamlined infrastructure for running evaluations out of the box. By standardizing setup and metrics, it enables reproducible, scalable, and fair comparison across unlearning methods. We aim for this benchmark to serve as a practical foundation for accelerating research and promoting best practices in machine unlearning. Our code and data are publicly available.

Amid the expanding use of pre-training data, the phenomenon of benchmark dataset leakage has become increasingly prominent, exacerbated by opaque training processes and the often undisclosed inclusion of supervised data in contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). This issue skews benchmark effectiveness and fosters potentially unfair comparisons, impeding the field's healthy development. To address this, we introduce a detection pipeline utilizing Perplexity and N-gram accuracy, two simple and scalable metrics that gauge a model's prediction precision on benchmark, to identify potential data leakages. By analyzing 31 LLMs under the context of mathematical reasoning, we reveal substantial instances of training even test set misuse, resulting in potentially unfair comparisons. These findings prompt us to offer several recommendations regarding model documentation, benchmark setup, and future evaluations. Notably, we propose the "Benchmark Transparency Card" to encourage clear documentation of benchmark utilization, promoting transparency and healthy developments of LLMs. we have made our leaderboard, pipeline implementation, and model predictions publicly available, fostering future research.

Conducting contamination-free evaluation of mathematical capabilities can be difficult for two reasons: models may memorize a test set once it is made public, and current mathematical benchmarks are prone to overfitting due to having limited diversity of symbols and rules, coupled with closed-ended answers. This paper proposes a method to leverage these shortcomings as useful features to a construct dynamic, counterfactual benchmark, which can be used to both reveal overfitting and measure true reasoning. We demonstrate this via MatheMagic, which generates math test instances with the interpretations of numbers and operators altered, yet has automatically verifiable answers. Test instances are randomly seeded and constructed at test time to evaluate a model's induction or deduction capability, offering stability, extensibility, comparability, and robustness to overfitting. Our experiments find that models solve deduction more easily than induction, but they revert to standard math. Further analysis reveals that math-adapted models fail to exhibit a general "skill" of reasoning, and fine-tuning on induction tasks generalizes poorly.

Counterfactual reasoning requires models to reason beyond the observed world and explain how altered conditions propagate through downstream consequences. Existing benchmarks largely target bounded settings with fixed variables or single gold outcomes, overlooking open-domain scenarios requiring causal-process evaluation. To this end, we present WhatIfBench, a diagnostic benchmark for open-domain, open-form, long-horizon counterfactual causal reasoning, containing 220 what-if questions across STEM, HSS, and Hybrid scenarios. To evaluate free-form responses, we further propose PRISM, which first converts each natural-language explanation into a Response-Derived Semantic Causal Graph of events, states, and mechanisms. On top of this graph, PRISM then jointly applies a Process Metric assessing graph-level causal validity and a Rubric Metric assessing answer-level explanatory adequacy. Evaluating six frontier LLMs with this framework, we find that WhatIfBench remains far from saturated: even the strongest model reaches only a 64.62% final score. Further analysis reveals persistent causal gaps, premise drift, and topology fragmentation, suggesting that fluent counterfactual narratives often mask fragile causal processes. The benchmark, code, and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/zju-gt/WhatIfBench{WhatIfBench}.

We introduce ProofGrid, a benchmark suite for evaluating LLM reasoning through machine-checkable proofs rather than final answers alone. ProofGrid contains 15 tasks spanning proof writing, proof checking, proof masking, and proof gap-filling. Tasks are expressed in minimal formal notation, especially NDL, a compact natural-deduction language that fits in short prompts and supports precise, auditable verification. This yields mechanical, reproducible, and fine-grained evaluation rather than judgments by humans or LLMs. ProofGrid covers a calibrated difficulty spectrum, from foundational reasoning tests to structurally rich challenge tasks that no current model solves, while minimizing reliance on domain knowledge, solver delegation, and long-context artifacts. We also develop a comparative framework for reasoning benchmarks and use it to situate ProofGrid relative to existing work in terms of representation, verification guarantees, and reasoning depth. Methodologically, we introduce an instrumented proof-checking pipeline that tolerates minor surface deviations while locating the first substantive reasoning failure, improving measurement resolution and separating proof planning from low-level execution noise. Using this pipeline, we evaluate a broad range of open and proprietary models. Results show rapid progress but substantial remaining limits: frontier models perform well on several foundational tasks, yet difficult tasks, especially those requiring global combinatorial reasoning or low-level proof synthesis, remain far from solved. We also identify epistemic instability, where models generate flawed proofs yet correctly reject those local inferences in isolation, and formalize this with an Epistemic Stability Index. Finally, we complement accuracy with 2PL IRT analyses, Wright maps, and a normalized task-discrimination measure based on Fisher information.

Large language models often fail when answer options require combining atomic judgments under explicit logical operators, even when they judge the individual atoms correctly. We study compound options connected by AND, OR, and NEITHER/NOR, introducing a framework that decomposes each option into atomic answers and scores contrastive hypotheses about each one, so the model never sees a compound option. An operator-constrained integer linear program then composes the calibrated scores into a single prediction. We evaluate on LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA and introduce LOGICAL-SATA, a reading-comprehension benchmark derived from SATA-Bench. Our framework improves Macro-F1 from 48.3 to 77.0 on the human-validated LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA split and from 47.0 to 75.6 on LOGICAL-SATA, with the largest gains on NEITHER/NOR.

We introduce WiCkeD, a simple method to increase the complexity of existing multiple-choice benchmarks by randomly replacing a choice with "None of the above", a method often used in educational tests. We show that WiCkeD can be automatically applied to any existing benchmark, making it more challenging. We apply WiCkeD to 6 popular benchmarks and use it to evaluate 18 open-weight LLMs. The performance of the models drops 12.1 points on average with respect to the original versions of the datasets. When using chain-of-thought on 3 MMLU datasets, the performance drop for the WiCkeD variant is similar to the one observed when using the LLMs directly, showing that WiCkeD is also challenging for models with enhanced reasoning abilities. WiCkeD also uncovers that some models are more sensitive to the extra reasoning required, providing additional information with respect to the original benchmarks. We relase our code and data at https://github.com/ahmedselhady/wicked-benchmarks.

We introduce IndiaFinBench, to our knowledge the first publicly available evaluation benchmark for assessing large language model (LLM) performance on Indian financial regulatory text. Existing financial NLP benchmarks draw exclusively from Western financial corpora (SEC filings, US earnings reports, and English-language financial news), leaving a significant gap in coverage of non-Western regulatory frameworks. IndiaFinBench addresses this gap with 406 expert-annotated question-answer pairs drawn from 192 documents sourced from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), spanning four task types: regulatory interpretation (174 items), numerical reasoning (92 items), contradiction detection (62 items), and temporal reasoning (78 items). Annotation quality is validated through a model-based secondary pass (kappa=0.918 on contradiction detection) and a 60-item human inter-annotator agreement evaluation (kappa=0.611; 76.7% overall agreement). We evaluate twelve models under zero-shot conditions, with accuracy ranging from 70.4% (Gemma 4 E4B) to 89.7% (Gemini 2.5 Flash). All models substantially outperform a non-specialist human baseline of 60.0%. Numerical reasoning is the most discriminative task, with a 35.9 percentage-point spread across models. Bootstrap significance testing (10,000 resamples) reveals three statistically distinct performance tiers. The dataset, evaluation code, and all model outputs are available at https://github.com/rajveerpall/IndiaFinBench

Ensuring that Large Language Models (LLMs) generate summaries faithful to a given source document is essential for real-world applications. While prior research has explored LLM faithfulness, existing benchmarks suffer from annotation ambiguity, primarily due to the ill-defined boundary of permissible external knowledge in generated outputs. For instance, common sense is often incorporated into responses and labeled as "faithful", yet the acceptable extent of such knowledge remains unspecified, leading to inconsistent annotations. To address this issue, we propose a novel faithfulness annotation framework, which introduces an intermediate category, Out-Dependent, to classify cases where external knowledge is required for verification. Using this framework, we construct VeriGray (Verification with the Gray Zone) -- a new unfaithfulness detection benchmark in summarization. Statistics reveal that even SOTA LLMs, such as GPT-5, exhibit hallucinations (sim 6% of sentences) in summarization tasks. Moreover, a substantial proportion (sim 8% on average of models) of generated sentences fall into the Out-Dependent category, underscoring the importance of resolving annotation ambiguity in unfaithfulness detection benchmarks. Experiments demonstrate that our benchmark poses significant challenges to multiple baseline methods, indicating considerable room for future improvement.

Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM judges; however, these can introduce significant biases, and break down when scoring hard questions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for LLMs designed to be immune to both test set contamination and the pitfalls of LLM judging and human crowdsourcing. We release LiveBench, the first benchmark that (1) contains frequently-updated questions from recent information sources, (2) scores answers automatically according to objective ground-truth values, and (3) contains a wide variety of challenging tasks, spanning math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. To achieve this, LiveBench contains questions that are based on recently-released math competitions, arXiv papers, news articles, and datasets, and it contains harder, contamination-free versions of tasks from previous benchmarks such as Big-Bench Hard, AMPS, and IFEval. We evaluate many prominent closed-source models, as well as dozens of open-source models ranging from 0.5B to 110B in size. LiveBench is difficult, with top models achieving below 65% accuracy. We release all questions, code, and model answers. Questions will be added and updated on a monthly basis, and we will release new tasks and harder versions of tasks over time so that LiveBench can distinguish between the capabilities of LLMs as they improve in the future. We welcome community engagement and collaboration for expanding the benchmark tasks and models.

In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in code intelligence, yet systematically evaluating their code understanding and reasoning abilities remains challenging. Mainstream benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP primarily assess functional correctness, while reasoning benchmarks like CRUXEVAL are limited to single-function, low-complexity scenarios. As a result, advanced models achieve nearly saturated scores, limiting their discriminative power. To address this, we present STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench (SX-Bench), a novel benchmark designed for complex multi-function understanding and fine-grained execution reasoning. SX-Bench features tasks involving collaboration among multiple sub-functions (e.g., chained calls, nested loops), shifting evaluation towards overall control and data flow modeling. It defines "computation steps" as the minimal execution unit and requires models to predict the total number of steps in reasoning tasks, thereby assessing a model's in-depth understanding of dynamic execution beyond simple I/O matching. Evaluation on over 20 mainstream models (including 14 reasoning-enhanced models) demonstrates that SX-Bench is highly discriminative: even the state-of-the-art OpenAI-O3 achieves only 78.37 percent accuracy on Hard-Reasoning tasks, much lower than its saturated scores on previous benchmarks, thereby revealing bottlenecks in complex and fine-grained reasoning. We also release an automated pipeline combining program synthesis, symbolic execution, and LLM-aided validation for efficient benchmark generation and quality assurance. SX-Bench advances code evaluation from "single-function verification" to "multi-function dynamic reasoning," providing a key tool for the in-depth assessment of advanced code intelligence models.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have led to remarkable performance across a wide range of language understanding and mathematical tasks. As a result, increasing attention has been given to assessing the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs, driving research into commonsense, numerical, logical, and qualitative reasoning. However, with the rapid progress of reasoning-focused models such as OpenAI's o1 and DeepSeek's R1, there has been a growing demand for reasoning benchmarks that can keep pace with ongoing model developments. In this paper, we introduce MastermindEval, a simple, scalable, and interpretable deductive reasoning benchmark inspired by the board game Mastermind. Our benchmark supports two evaluation paradigms: (1) agentic evaluation, in which the model autonomously plays the game, and (2) deductive reasoning evaluation, in which the model is given a pre-played game state with only one possible valid code to infer. In our experimental results we (1) find that even easy Mastermind instances are difficult for current models and (2) demonstrate that the benchmark is scalable to possibly more advanced models in the future Furthermore, we investigate possible reasons why models cannot deduce the final solution and find that current models are limited in deducing the concealed code as the number of statement to combine information from is increasing.

Existing studies on bias mitigation methods for large language models (LLMs) use diverse baselines and metrics to evaluate debiasing performance, leading to inconsistent comparisons among them. Moreover, their evaluations are mostly based on the comparison between LLMs' probabilities of biased and unbiased contexts, which ignores the gap between such evaluations and real-world use cases where users interact with LLMs by reading model responses and expect fair and safe outputs rather than LLMs' probabilities. To enable consistent evaluation across debiasing methods and bridge this gap, we introduce BiasFreeBench, an empirical benchmark that comprehensively compares eight mainstream bias mitigation techniques (covering four prompting-based and four training-based methods) on two test scenarios (multi-choice QA and open-ended multi-turn QA) by reorganizing existing datasets into a unified query-response setting. We further introduce a response-level metric, Bias-Free Score, to measure the extent to which LLM responses are fair, safe, and anti-stereotypical. Debiasing performances are systematically compared and analyzed across key dimensions: the prompting vs. training paradigm, model size, and generalization of different training strategies to unseen bias types. We will publicly release our benchmark, aiming to establish a unified testbed for bias mitigation research.

With the advancement of large language models (LLMs), solving complex reasoning tasks has gained increasing attention. Inference-time computation methods (e.g., Best-of-N, beam search, et al.) are particularly valuable as they can enhance reasoning performance without modifying model parameters or requiring additional training. However, these techniques come with implementation challenges, and most existing methods remain at the proof-of-concept stage with limited practical adoption due to their computational complexity and varying effectiveness across different tasks. In this paper, we investigate and benchmark diverse inference-time computation strategies across reasoning tasks of varying complexity. Since most current methods rely on a proposer-verifier pipeline that first generates candidate solutions (e.g., reasoning solutions) and then selects the best one based on reward signals (e.g., RLHF rewards, process rewards), our research focuses on optimizing both candidate solution generation (e.g., instructing prompts, hyperparameters such as temperature and top-p) and reward mechanisms (e.g., self-evaluation, reward types). Through extensive experiments (more than 20,000 A100-80G GPU hours with over 1,000 experiments) across a variety of models (e.g., Llama, Qwen, and Mistral families) of various sizes, our ablation studies reveal that previously overlooked strategies can significantly enhance performance (e.g., tuning temperature can improve reasoning task performance by up to 5%). Furthermore, we establish a standardized benchmark for inference-time computation by systematically evaluating six representative methods across eight reasoning tasks. These findings provide a stronger foundation for future research. The code is available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/benchmark_inference_time_computation_LLM

Formal mathematical reasoning remains a critical challenge for artificial intelligence, hindered by limitations of existing benchmarks in scope and scale. To address this, we present FormalMATH, a large-scale Lean4 benchmark comprising 5,560 formally verified problems spanning from high-school Olympiad challenges to undergraduate-level theorems across diverse domains (e.g., algebra, applied mathematics, calculus, number theory, and discrete mathematics). To mitigate the inefficiency of manual formalization, we introduce a novel human-in-the-loop autoformalization pipeline that integrates: (1) specialized large language models (LLMs) for statement autoformalization, (2) multi-LLM semantic verification, and (3) negation-based disproof filtering strategies using off-the-shelf LLM-based provers. This approach reduces expert annotation costs by retaining 72.09% of statements before manual verification while ensuring fidelity to the original natural-language problems. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLM-based theorem provers reveals significant limitations: even the strongest models achieve only 16.46% success rate under practical sampling budgets, exhibiting pronounced domain bias (e.g., excelling in algebra but failing in calculus) and over-reliance on simplified automation tactics. Notably, we identify a counterintuitive inverse relationship between natural-language solution guidance and proof success in chain-of-thought reasoning scenarios, suggesting that human-written informal reasoning introduces noise rather than clarity in the formal reasoning settings. We believe that FormalMATH provides a robust benchmark for benchmarking formal mathematical reasoning.

Existing evaluation benchmarks of language models of code (code LMs) focus almost exclusively on whether the LMs can generate functionally-correct code. In real-world software engineering, developers think beyond functional correctness. They have requirements on "how" a functionality should be implemented to meet overall system design objectives like efficiency, security, and maintainability. They would also trust the code LMs more if the LMs demonstrate robust understanding of requirements and code semantics. We propose a new benchmark NoFunEval to evaluate code LMs on non-functional requirements and simple classification instances for both functional and non-functional requirements. We propose a prompting method, Coding Concepts (CoCo), as a way for a developer to communicate the domain knowledge to the LMs. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two code LMs. Our finding is that they generally falter when tested on our benchmark, hinting at fundamental blindspots in their training setups. Surprisingly, even the classification accuracy on functional-correctness instances derived from the popular HumanEval benchmark is low, calling in question the depth of their comprehension and the source of their success in generating functionally-correct code in the first place. We will release our benchmark and evaluation scripts publicly at https://aka.ms/NoFunEval.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on explicit reasoning to solve coding tasks, yet evaluating the quality of this reasoning remains challenging. Existing reasoning evaluators are not designed for coding, and current benchmarks focus primarily on code generation, leaving other coding tasks largely unexplored. We introduce CodeRQ-Bench, the first benchmark for evaluating LLM reasoning quality across three coding task categories: generation, summarization, and classification. Using this benchmark, we analyze 1,069 mismatch cases from existing evaluators, identify five recurring limitations, and derive four design insights for reasoning evaluation in coding tasks. Guided by these insights, we propose VERA, a two-stage evaluator that combines evidence-grounded verification with ambiguity-aware score correction. Experiments on CodeRQ-Bench show that VERA consistently outperforms strong baselines across four datasets, improving AUCROC by up to 0.26 and AUPRC by up to 0.21. We release CodeRQ-Bench at https://github.com/MrLYG/CodeRQ-Bench, supporting future investigations.

Negations are key to determining sentence meaning, making them essential for logical reasoning. Despite their importance, negations pose a substantial challenge for large language models (LLMs) and remain underexplored. We constructed and published two new textual entailment datasets NoFEVER-ML and NoSNLI-ML in four languages (English, Czech, German, and Ukrainian) with examples differing in negation. It allows investigation of the root causes of the negation problem and its exemplification: how popular LLM model properties and language impact their inability to handle negation correctly. Contrary to previous work, we show that increasing the model size may improve the models' ability to handle negations. Furthermore, we find that both the models' reasoning accuracy and robustness to negation are language-dependent and that the length and explicitness of the premise have an impact on robustness. There is better accuracy in projective language with fixed order, such as English, than in non-projective ones, such as German or Czech. Our entailment datasets pave the way to further research for explanation and exemplification of the negation problem, minimization of LLM hallucinations, and improvement of LLM reasoning in multilingual settings.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making, largely based on the step-by-step chain-of-thought reasoning processes. However, it has been increasingly challenging to evaluate the reasoning capability of LLMs. Concretely, existing outcome-based benchmarks begin to saturate and become less sufficient to monitor the progress. To this end, we present a process-based benchmark MR-BEN that demands a meta reasoning skill, where LMs are asked to locate and analyse potential errors in automatically generated reasoning steps. MR-BEN is a comprehensive benchmark comprising 5,975 questions collected from human experts, covering various subjects such as physics, chemistry, logic, coding, and more. Through our designed metrics for assessing meta-reasoning on this benchmark, we identify interesting limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs (open-source and closed-source models). For example, open-source models are seemingly comparable to GPT-4 on outcome-based benchmarks, but they lag far behind on our benchmark, revealing the underlying reasoning capability gap between them. Our dataset and codes are available on https://randolph-zeng.github.io/Mr-Ben.github.io/.

We perform a thorough analysis of the formal and informal statements in the miniF2F benchmark from the perspective of an AI system that is tasked to participate in a math Olympiad consisting of the problems in miniF2F. In such setting, the model has to read and comprehend the problems in natural language, formalize them in Lean language, then proceed with proving the problems, and it will get credit for each problem if the formal proof corresponds to the original informal statement presented to the model. Our evaluation results reveal that the best accuracy of such pipeline can be about 36% using the SoTA models in the literature, considerably lower than the individual SoTA accuracies, 97% and 69% reported in the autoformalization and theorem proving literature. Analyzing the failure modes, we trace back a considerable portion of this drop to discrepancies between the formal and informal statements for more than half of the problems in miniF2F. We proceed with correcting all the errors, discrepancies and simplifications in formal and informal statements, and present the miniF2F-v2 with fully verified formal and informal statements and proofs. Evaluating the full theorem proving pipeline on miniF2F-v2 leads to the best accuracy of 70%, a significant improvement from the 40% on the original miniF2F, yet indicating considerable misalignment between the autoformalization models and theorem provers. Our deep analysis suggests that a higher quality benchmark can help the community better evaluate progress in the field of formal reasoning and also better diagnose the failure and success modes of autoformalization and theorem proving models. Our dataset is available at https://github.com/roozbeh-yz/miniF2F_v2.

The increasing complexity of large language models (LLMs) raises concerns about their ability to "cheat" on standard Question Answering (QA) benchmarks by memorizing task-specific data. This undermines the validity of benchmark evaluations, as they no longer reflect genuine model capabilities but instead the effects of data leakage. While prior work has focused on detecting such leakage, little attention has been given to mitigating its impact and preserving the long-term utility of benchmarks. In this paper, we introduce LastingBench, a novel framework designed to continuously reinforce and safeguard existing benchmarks against knowledge leakage. LastingBench identifies leakage points in the context through perturbation, then rewrites the leakage points to counterfactual ones-disrupting memorization while preserving the benchmark's original evaluative intent. Evaluations of state-of-the-art QA benchmarks show significant performance gaps, highlighting the efficacy of LastingBench in reducing memorization effects. LastingBench offers a practical and scalable solution to ensure benchmark robustness over time, promoting fairer and more interpretable evaluations of LLMs.

Evaluation of reasoning language models gained importance after it was observed that they can combine their existing capabilities into novel traces of intermediate steps before task completion and that the traces can sometimes help them to generalize better than past models. As reasoning becomes the next scaling dimension of large language models, careful study of their capabilities in critical tasks is needed. We show that better performance is not always caused by test-time algorithmic improvements or model sizes but also by using impactful benchmarks as curricula for learning. We call this benchmark-driven selection of AI and show its effects on DeepSeek-R1 using our sequential decision-making problem from Humanity's Last Exam. Steering development of AI by impactful benchmarks trades evaluation for learning and makes novelty of test tasks key for measuring generalization capabilities of reasoning models. Consequently, some benchmarks could be seen as curricula for training rather than unseen test sets.

We propose that benchmarking LLMs on questions which have no reasonable answer actually isn't as silly as it sounds. We also present a benchmark that allows such testing and a method to modify the existing datasets, and discover that existing models demonstrate a performance far from the perfect on such questions. Our code and data artifacts are available at https://github.com/L3G5/impossible-bench

RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems and web agents are increasingly evaluated on multi-hop deep search tasks, yet current practice suffers from two major limitations. First, most benchmarks leak the reasoning path in the question text, allowing models to follow surface cues rather than discover reasoning chains autonomously. Second, evaluation is typically reduced to a single pass rate, which collapses diverse behaviours into one score and obscures whether failures stem from inadequate search, poor knowledge use, or inappropriate refusal. To address these issues, we present WebDetective, a benchmark of hint-free multi-hop questions paired with a controlled Wikipedia sandbox that ensures full traceability of model actions, and a holistic evaluation framework that separates search sufficiency, knowledge utilisation, and refusal behaviour. Our evaluation of 25 state-of-the-art models reveals systematic weaknesses across all architectures: models struggle with knowledge utilisation despite having sufficient evidence and demonstrate near-absent appropriate refusal when evidence is lacking. These patterns expose a fundamental gap: today's systems excel at executing given reasoning paths but fail when required to discover them. We develop an agentic workflow, EvidenceLoop, that explicitly targets the challenges our benchmark identifies, incorporating verification loops and systematic evidence tracking that improve both search and synthesis capabilities. This baseline demonstrates that WebDetective's diagnostic framework can guide concrete architectural improvements, establishing our benchmark as a critical tool for developing genuinely autonomous reasoning systems rather than pattern-following agents.

Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass.

Machine unlearning has emerged as an important component in developing safe and trustworthy models. Prior work on fact unlearning in LLMs has mostly focused on removing a specified target fact robustly, but often overlooks its deductive connections to other knowledge. We propose a new setting for fact unlearning, deep unlearning, where the goal is not only to remove a target fact but also to prevent it from being deduced via retained knowledge in the LLM and logical reasoning. We propose three novel metrics: Success-DU and Recall to measure unlearning efficacy, and Accuracy to measure the remainder model utility. To benchmark this setting, we leverage both (1) an existing real-world knowledge dataset, MQuAKE, that provides one-step deduction instances, and (2) newly construct a novel semi-synthetic dataset, Eval-DU, that allows multiple steps of realistic deductions among synthetic facts. Experiments reveal that current methods struggle with deep unlearning: they either fail to deeply unlearn, or excessively remove unrelated facts. Our results suggest that targeted algorithms may have to be developed for robust/deep fact unlearning in LLMs.

The Adversarial Humanities Benchmark (AHB) evaluates whether model safety refusals survive a shift away from familiar harmful prompt forms. Starting from harmful tasks drawn from MLCommons AILuminate, the benchmark rewrites the same objectives through humanities-style transformations while preserving intent. This extends literature on Adversarial Poetry and Adversarial Tales from single jailbreak operators to a broader benchmark family of stylistic obfuscation and goal concealment. In the benchmark results reported here, the original attacks record 3.84% attack success rate (ASR), while transformed methods range from 36.8% to 65.0%, yielding 55.75% overall ASR across 31 frontier models. Under a European Union AI Act Code-of-Practice-inspired systemic-risk lens, Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) is the highest bucket. Taken together, this lack of stylistic robustness suggests that current safety techniques suffer from weak generalization: deep understanding of 'non-maleficence' remains a central unresolved problem in frontier model safety.

Image-text alignment is a core problem in computer vision with applications in caption evaluation, hallucination detection, data curation, and the benchmarking of text-to-image (T2I) generators. As T2I models improve, benchmarking has become demanding, requiring metrics capable of finding a series of issues like missing objects, swapped attributes, miscounts, and ignored negations. Recent work addresses this by fine-tuning evaluators on preference data or by prompting a vision-language model, either holistically with the caption or with decomposed verification questions. However, existing approaches fall short: fine-tuned metrics remain bound to one backbone and training distribution; holistic metrics miss fine-grained details; and decomposed metrics rely on a fixed-YES assumption that penalizes faithful images whenever that assumption fails. In contrast, we propose DEPICT, a training-free metric that replaces fixed reference answers with expected agreement between image-based and caption-only answers, weighting questions by how decisively the caption determines them. By replacing fixed references, our agreement rule increases negation accuracy from 19% to 88%. To recover the context lost during decomposition, DEPICT merges this agreement score with a holistic score. We evaluate DEPICT on five benchmarks and eleven backbones from three model families and find that it surpasses all training-free metrics and exceeds fine-tuned evaluators on two out of three human-correlation benchmarks.

We present ORCA (Omni Research on Calculation in AI) Benchmark - a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on multi-domain, real-life quantitative reasoning using verified outputs from Omni's calculator engine. In 500 natural-language tasks across domains such as finance, physics, health, and statistics, the five state-of-the-art systems (ChatGPT-5, Gemini~2.5~Flash, Claude~Sonnet~4.5, Grok~4, and DeepSeek~V3.2) achieved only 45--63,% accuracy, with errors mainly related to rounding (35,%) and calculation mistakes (33,%). Results in specific domains indicate strengths in mathematics and engineering, but weaknesses in physics and natural sciences. Correlation analysis (r approx 0.40--0.65) shows that the models often fail together but differ in the types of errors they make, highlighting their partial complementarity rather than redundancy. Unlike standard math datasets, ORCA evaluates step-by-step reasoning, numerical precision, and domain generalization across real problems from finance, physics, health, and statistics.

Object hallucination poses a significant challenge in vision-language (VL) models, often leading to the generation of nonsensical or unfaithful responses with non-existent objects. However, the absence of a general measurement for evaluating object hallucination in VL models has hindered our understanding and ability to mitigate this issue. In this work, we present NOPE (Negative Object Presence Evaluation), a novel benchmark designed to assess object hallucination in VL models through visual question answering (VQA). We propose a cost-effective and scalable approach utilizing large language models to generate 29.5k synthetic negative pronoun (NegP) data of high quality for NOPE. We extensively investigate the performance of 10 state-of-the-art VL models in discerning the non-existence of objects in visual questions, where the ground truth answers are denoted as NegP (e.g., "none"). Additionally, we evaluate their standard performance on visual questions on 9 other VQA datasets. Through our experiments, we demonstrate that no VL model is immune to the vulnerability of object hallucination, as all models achieve accuracy below 10\% on NegP. Furthermore, we uncover that lexically diverse visual questions, question types with large scopes, and scene-relevant objects capitalize the risk of object hallucination in VL models.

We introduce DABstep, a novel benchmark for evaluating AI agents on realistic multi-step data analysis tasks. DABstep comprises over 450 real-world challenges derived from a financial analytics platform, requiring models to combine code-based data processing with contextual reasoning over heterogeneous documentation. Each task demands an iterative, multi-step problem-solving approach, testing capabilities in data manipulation, cross-referencing multiple sources, and precise result reporting. The benchmark provides a factoid-style answer format with automatic correctness checks for objective scoring at scale. We evaluate leading LLM-based agents, revealing a substantial performance gap: even the best agent achieves only 14.55% accuracy on the hardest tasks. We detail our benchmark's design, dataset composition, task formulation, evaluation protocol, report baseline results and analyze failure modes. DABstep is released with a public leaderboard and toolkit to accelerate research in autonomous data analysis.

We conduct a moderate-scale contamination-free (to some extent) evaluation of current large reasoning models (LRMs) with some preliminary findings. We also release ROME, our evaluation benchmark for vision language models intended to test reasoning from visual clues. We attach links to the benchmark, evaluation data, and other updates on this website: https://flageval-baai.github.io/LRM-Eval/

Unlearning in Large Language Models (LLMs) aims to enhance safety, mitigate biases, and comply with legal mandates, such as the right to be forgotten. However, existing unlearning methods are brittle: minor query modifications, such as multi-hop reasoning and entity aliasing, can recover supposedly forgotten information. As a result, current evaluation metrics often create an illusion of effectiveness, failing to detect these vulnerabilities due to reliance on static, unstructured benchmarks. We propose a dynamic framework that stress tests unlearning robustness using complex structured queries. Our approach first elicits knowledge from the target model (pre-unlearning) and constructs targeted probes, ranging from simple queries to multi-hop chains, allowing precise control over query difficulty. Our experiments show that the framework (1) shows comparable coverage to existing benchmarks by automatically generating semantically equivalent Q&A probes, (2) aligns with prior evaluations, and (3) uncovers new unlearning failures missed by other benchmarks, particularly in multi-hop settings. Furthermore, activation analyses show that single-hop queries typically follow dominant computation pathways, which are more likely to be disrupted by unlearning methods. In contrast, multi-hop queries tend to use alternative pathways that often remain intact, explaining the brittleness of unlearning techniques in multi-hop settings. Our framework enables practical and scalable evaluation of unlearning methods without the need for manual construction of forget test sets, enabling easier adoption for real-world applications. We release the pip package and the code at https://sites.google.com/view/unlearningmirage/home.

Evaluation of foundation models often rely on aggregate scores from benchmarks that lack comprehensive coverage and metadata for a fine-grained evaluation. We introduce a framework for automated benchmark generation. Our framework generates evaluation problems grounded in reference material, such as textbooks, producing benchmarks with broad coverage, rich metadata, and robustness to contamination. The pipeline employs a multi-agent architecture for problem generation and a solution-graph-driven strategy that significantly improves the reliability of ground truth solutions. Using the framework, we generate three benchmarks in Machine Learning, Corporate Finance, and Personal Finance. Expert review finds a significantly lower ground-truth error rate than previous benchmarks such as MMLU and GSM8K. Evaluation of 12 commercial and open-source models shows that our benchmarks achieve near-uniform competency coverage and surface performance differences across models that existing benchmarks fail to capture. We will open-source the framework and our curated benchmarks soon.

The advent of natural language understanding (NLU) benchmarks for English, such as GLUE and SuperGLUE allows new NLU models to be evaluated across a diverse set of tasks. These comprehensive benchmarks have facilitated a broad range of research and applications in natural language processing (NLP). The problem, however, is that most such benchmarks are limited to English, which has made it difficult to replicate many of the successes in English NLU for other languages. To help remedy this issue, we introduce the first large-scale Chinese Language Understanding Evaluation (CLUE) benchmark. CLUE is an open-ended, community-driven project that brings together 9 tasks spanning several well-established single-sentence/sentence-pair classification tasks, as well as machine reading comprehension, all on original Chinese text. To establish results on these tasks, we report scores using an exhaustive set of current state-of-the-art pre-trained Chinese models (9 in total). We also introduce a number of supplementary datasets and additional tools to help facilitate further progress on Chinese NLU. Our benchmark is released at https://www.CLUEbenchmarks.com