Daily Papers

While the evaluation of explanations is an important step towards trustworthy models, it needs to be done carefully, and the employed metrics need to be well-understood. Specifically model randomization testing is often overestimated and regarded as a sole criterion for selecting or discarding certain explanation methods. To address shortcomings of this test, we start by observing an experimental gap in the ranking of explanation methods between randomization-based sanity checks [1] and model output faithfulness measures (e.g. [25]). We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Firstly, we show that uninformative attribution maps created with zero pixel-wise covariance easily achieve high scores in this type of checks. Secondly, we show that top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability. That is, channels with large activations have a high probility to contribute strongly to the output, even after randomization of the network on top of them. Hence, explanations after randomization can only be expected to differ to a certain extent. This explains the observed experimental gap. In summary, these results demonstrate the inadequacy of model-randomization-based sanity checks as a criterion to rank attribution methods.

Selecting the best code solution from multiple generated ones is an essential task in code generation, which can be achieved by using some reliable validators (e.g., developer-written test cases) for assistance. Since reliable test cases are not always available and can be expensive to build in practice, researchers propose to automatically generate test cases to assess code solutions. However, when both code solutions and test cases are plausible and not reliable, selecting the best solution becomes challenging. Although some heuristic strategies have been proposed to tackle this problem, they lack a strong theoretical guarantee and it is still an open question whether an optimal selection strategy exists. Our work contributes in two ways. First, we show that within a Bayesian framework, the optimal selection strategy can be defined based on the posterior probability of the observed passing states between solutions and tests. The problem of identifying the best solution is then framed as an integer programming problem. Second, we propose an efficient approach for approximating this optimal (yet uncomputable) strategy, where the approximation error is bounded by the correctness of prior knowledge. We then incorporate effective prior knowledge to tailor code generation tasks. Both theoretical and empirical studies confirm that existing heuristics are limited in selecting the best solutions with plausible test cases. Our proposed approximated optimal strategy B4 significantly surpasses existing heuristics in selecting code solutions generated by large language models (LLMs) with LLM-generated tests, achieving a relative performance improvement by up to 50% over the strongest heuristic and 246% over the random selection in the most challenging scenarios. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ZJU-CTAG/B4.

The correctness of computations remains a significant challenge in computer science, with traditional approaches relying on automated testing or formal verification. Self-testing/correcting programs introduce an alternative paradigm, allowing a program to verify and correct its own outputs via randomized reductions, a concept that previously required manual derivation. In this paper, we present Bitween, a method and tool for automated learning of randomized (self)-reductions and program properties in numerical programs. Bitween combines symbolic analysis and machine learning, with a surprising finding: polynomial-time linear regression, a basic optimization method, is not only sufficient but also highly effective for deriving complex randomized self-reductions and program invariants, often outperforming sophisticated mixed-integer linear programming solvers. We establish a theoretical framework for learning these reductions and introduce RSR-Bench, a benchmark suite for evaluating Bitween's capabilities on scientific and machine learning functions. Our empirical results show that Bitween surpasses state-of-the-art tools in scalability, stability, and sample efficiency when evaluated on nonlinear invariant benchmarks like NLA-DigBench. Bitween is open-source as a Python package and accessible via a web interface that supports C language programs.

This paper presents a quantitative program verification infrastructure for discrete probabilistic programs. Our infrastructure can be viewed as the probabilistic analogue of Boogie: its central components are an intermediate verification language (IVL) together with a real-valued logic. Our IVL provides a programming-language-style for expressing verification conditions whose validity implies the correctness of a program under investigation. As our focus is on verifying quantitative properties such as bounds on expected outcomes, expected run-times, or termination probabilities, off-the-shelf IVLs based on Boolean first-order logic do not suffice. Instead, a paradigm shift from the standard Boolean to a real-valued domain is required. Our IVL features quantitative generalizations of standard verification constructs such as assume- and assert-statements. Verification conditions are generated by a weakest-precondition-style semantics, based on our real-valued logic. We show that our verification infrastructure supports natural encodings of numerous verification techniques from the literature. With our SMT-based implementation, we automatically verify a variety of benchmarks. To the best of our knowledge, this establishes the first deductive verification infrastructure for expectation-based reasoning about probabilistic programs.

Fuzz testing, or "fuzzing," refers to a widely deployed class of techniques for testing programs by generating a set of inputs for the express purpose of finding bugs and identifying security flaws. Grey-box fuzzing, the most popular fuzzing strategy, combines light program instrumentation with a data driven process to generate new program inputs. In this work, we present a machine learning approach that builds on AFL, the preeminent grey-box fuzzer, by adaptively learning a probability distribution over its mutation operators on a program-specific basis. These operators, which are selected uniformly at random in AFL and mutational fuzzers in general, dictate how new inputs are generated, a core part of the fuzzer's efficacy. Our main contributions are two-fold: First, we show that a sampling distribution over mutation operators estimated from training programs can significantly improve performance of AFL. Second, we introduce a Thompson Sampling, bandit-based optimization approach that fine-tunes the mutator distribution adaptively, during the course of fuzzing an individual program. A set of experiments across complex programs demonstrates that tuning the mutational operator distribution generates sets of inputs that yield significantly higher code coverage and finds more crashes faster and more reliably than both baseline versions of AFL as well as other AFL-based learning approaches.

In this work, we explore uncertainty estimation as a proxy for correctness in LLM-generated code. To this end, we adapt two state-of-the-art techniques from natural language generation -- one based on entropy and another on mutual information -- to the domain of code generation. Given the distinct semantic properties of code, we introduce modifications, including a semantic equivalence check based on symbolic execution. Our findings indicate a strong correlation between the uncertainty computed through these techniques and correctness, highlighting the potential of uncertainty estimation for quality assessment. Additionally, we propose a simplified version of the entropy-based method that assumes a uniform distribution over the LLM's responses, demonstrating comparable effectiveness. Using these techniques, we develop an abstention policy that prevents the model from making predictions when uncertainty is high, reducing incorrect outputs to near zero. Our evaluation on the LiveCodeBench shows that our approach significantly outperforms a baseline relying solely on LLM-reported log-probabilities.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where reasoning, such as multi-step problem solving and chain-of-thought, is essential. Yet, current evaluation practices overwhelmingly report single-run accuracy while ignoring the intrinsic uncertainty that naturally arises from stochastic decoding. This omission creates a blind spot because practitioners cannot reliably assess whether a method's reported performance is stable, reproducible, or cost-consistent. We introduce ReasonBENCH, the first benchmark designed to quantify the underlying instability in LLM reasoning. ReasonBENCH provides (i) a modular evaluation library that standardizes reasoning frameworks, models, and tasks, (ii) a multi-run protocol that reports statistically reliable metrics for both quality and cost, and (iii) a public leaderboard to encourage variance-aware reporting. Across tasks from different domains, we find that the vast majority of reasoning strategies and models exhibit high instability. Notably, even strategies with similar average performance can display confidence intervals up to four times wider, and the top-performing methods often incur higher and less stable costs. Such instability compromises reproducibility across runs and, consequently, the reliability of reported performance. To better understand these dynamics, we further analyze the impact of prompts, model families, and scale on the trade-off between solve rate and stability. Our results highlight reproducibility as a critical dimension for reliable LLM reasoning and provide a foundation for future reasoning methods and uncertainty quantification techniques. ReasonBENCH is publicly available at https://github.com/au-clan/ReasonBench .

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks, with an increased focus on bug report resolution over the past year. However, most proposed systems fail to properly handle uncertain or incorrect inputs and outputs. Existing LLM-based tools and coding agents respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect. There are no mechanisms in place to abstain when confidence is low. This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports. We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined or refuse to respond when their own outputs are likely to be incorrect. Unlike prior benchmarks that implicitly incentivize models to generate responses even when uncertain, BouncerBench aims to improve precision by targeting two overlooked failure points: (1) vague or underspecified issue descriptions in tickets and (2) logically or functionally incorrect code patches created by the system. It measures whether proposed systems can distinguish actionable issues from vague tickets and valid patches from untrustworthy ones. We also implement a basic input and output bouncer, evaluating how well current LLMs can abstain when needed. Our results show that most models fail to abstain from underspecified inputs or incorrect outputs. Hence, we conclude that there is significant room for improvement before LLMs can be trusted to make correct decisions and recommendations in real-world software engineering workflows. BouncerBench provides a first step toward evaluating and building more cautious, trustworthy code agents. The replication package, dataset, and leaderboard can be found at bouncerbench.com

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.

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.

Automated issue solving aims to resolve real-world issues in software repositories. The most popular benchmarks for automated issue solving are SWE-bench and its human-filtered subset SWE-bench Verified. These benchmarks leverage testing to validate generated patches. However, because testing is rarely exhaustive, a patch may pass the tests but nevertheless fail to match the developers' expectations. Unfortunately, it is currently unclear to what extent evaluations performed with SWE-bench suffer from such plausible but incorrect patches. This paper presents an in-depth empirical study of the correctness of plausible patches generated by three state-of-the-art issue-solving tools evaluated on SWE-bench Verified. We extensively test and inspect generated patches, and compare them against human-written ground truth patches. The core of our methodology is a novel technique PatchDiff for differential patch testing, which automatically exposes behavioral discrepancies between two patches. Our findings reveal critical weaknesses in SWE-bench's patch validation mechanism, which causes 7.8% of all patches to count as correct while failing the developer-written test suite. Moreover, our novel automated technique reveals that even more (29.6%) plausible patches induce different behavior than the ground truth patches. These behavioral differences are often due to similar, but divergent implementations (46.8%) and due to generated patches that adapt more behavior than the ground truth patches (27.3%). Our manual inspection shows that 28.6% of behaviorally divergent patches are certainly incorrect. Combined, the different weaknesses lead to an inflation of reported resolution rates by 6.2 absolute percent points. Our findings are a call to arms for more robust and reliable evaluation of issue-solving tools. We envision our automated differential patch testing technique to be useful for this purpose.

Sampling-based search, a simple paradigm for utilizing test-time compute, involves generating multiple candidate responses and selecting the best one -- typically by verifying each response for correctness. In this paper, we study the scaling trends governing sampling-based search. Among our findings is that simply scaling up a minimalist implementation that uses only random sampling and direct self-verification results in sustained performance improvements that, for example, elevate the Gemini v1.5 Pro model's reasoning capabilities past that of o1-Preview on popular benchmarks. We partially attribute the scalability of sampling-based search to a phenomenon of implicit scaling, where sampling a larger pool of responses in turn improves verification accuracy. We further identify two useful principles for improving self-verification capabilities with test-time compute: (1) comparing across responses provides helpful signals about the locations of errors and hallucinations, and (2) different model output styles are useful for different contexts -- chains of thought are useful for reasoning but harder to verify. We also find that, though accurate verification can be elicited, frontier models demonstrate remarkably weak out-of-box verification capabilities and introduce a benchmark to measure progress on these deficiencies.

We propose a novel approach to scaling LLM inference for code generation. We frame code generation as a black box optimization problem within the code space, and employ optimization-inspired techniques to enhance exploration. Specifically, we introduce Scattered Forest Search to enhance solution diversity while searching for solutions. Our theoretical analysis illustrates how these methods avoid local optima during optimization. Extensive experiments on HumanEval, MBPP, APPS, CodeContests, and Leetcode reveal significant performance improvements. For instance, our method achieves a pass@1 rate of 67.1% on HumanEval+ and 87.2% on HumanEval with GPT-3.5, marking improvements of 8.6% and 4.3% over the state-of-the-art, while also halving the iterations needed to find the correct solution. Furthermore, our method scales more efficiently than existing search techniques, including tree search, line search, and repeated sampling.

Despite its simplicity and efficacy, the high token expenditure of self-consistency can limit its practical utility. Here we investigate if self-consistency can be made more token-efficient for long chain-of-thought reasoning tasks, while preserving its parallelism, through early hypothesis pruning. Concretely, we generate all solutions in parallel, but periodically prune intermediate hypotheses that are deemed unnecessary based on two lightweight indicators: (a) the model's own confidence in individual hypotheses, and (b) lexical coverage of all current hypotheses by candidate subsets that are under consideration for continued retention. We design a fast weighted set cover algorithm that utilizes the two indicators; our evaluation of five LLMs on three math benchmarks shows that this method can improve token efficiency for all models, by 10-35% in many cases.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, to mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods such as process reward models (PRMs) or self-consistency operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from the idea that "the gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof". We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework Safe. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations. We evaluate our framework Safe across multiple language models and various mathematical datasets, demonstrating a significant performance improvement while offering interpretable and verifiable evidence. We also propose FormalStep as a benchmark for step correctness theorem proving with 30,809 formal statements. To the best of our knowledge, our work represents the first endeavor to utilize formal mathematical language Lean 4 for verifying natural language content generated by LLMs, aligning with the reason why formal mathematical languages were created in the first place: to provide a robust foundation for hallucination-prone human-written proofs.

Recent research has generated hope that inference scaling could allow weaker language models to match or exceed the accuracy of stronger models, such as by repeatedly sampling solutions to a coding problem until it passes unit tests. The central thesis of this paper is that there is no free lunch for inference scaling: indefinite accuracy improvement through resampling can only be realized if the "verifier" (in this case, a set of unit tests) is perfect. When the verifier is imperfect, as it almost always is in domains such as reasoning or coding (for example, unit tests have imperfect coverage), there is a nonzero probability of false positives: incorrect solutions that pass the verifier. Resampling cannot decrease this probability, so it imposes an upper bound to the accuracy of resampling-based inference scaling even with an infinite compute budget. We find that there is a very strong correlation between the model's single-sample accuracy (i.e. accuracy without unit tests) and its false positive rate on coding benchmarks HumanEval and MBPP, whose unit tests have limited coverage. Therefore, no amount of inference scaling of weaker models can enable them to match the single-sample accuracy of a sufficiently strong model (Fig. 1a). When we consider that false positives have a negative utility compared to abstaining from producing a solution, it bends the inference scaling curve further downward. Empirically, we find that the optimal number of samples can be less than 10 under realistic assumptions (Fig. 1b). Finally, we show that beyond accuracy, false positives may have other undesirable qualities, such as poor adherence to coding style conventions.

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.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate exceptional capability in tackling complex mathematical, logical, and coding tasks by leveraging extended Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. Test-time scaling methods, such as prolonging CoT with explicit token-level exploration, can push LRMs' accuracy boundaries, but they incur significant decoding overhead. A key inefficiency source is LRMs often generate redundant thinking CoTs, which demonstrate clear structured overthinking and underthinking patterns. Inspired by human cognitive reasoning processes and numerical optimization theories, we propose TrimR, a verifier-based, training-free, efficient framework for dynamic CoT compression to trim reasoning and enhance test-time scaling, explicitly tailored for production-level deployment. Our method employs a lightweight, pretrained, instruction-tuned verifier to detect and truncate redundant intermediate thoughts of LRMs without any LRM or verifier fine-tuning. We present both the core algorithm and asynchronous online system engineered for high-throughput industrial applications. Empirical evaluations on Ascend NPUs and vLLM show that our framework delivers substantial gains in inference efficiency under large-batch workloads. In particular, on the four MATH500, AIME24, AIME25, and GPQA benchmarks, the reasoning runtime of Pangu Pro MoE, Pangu-R-38B, QwQ-32B, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B is improved by up to 70% with negligible impact on accuracy.

Recent advancements in large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated the effectiveness of scaling test-time computation to enhance reasoning capabilities in multiple tasks. However, LRMs typically suffer from "overthinking" problems, where models generate significantly redundant reasoning steps while bringing limited performance gains. Existing work relies on fine-tuning to mitigate overthinking, which requires additional data, unconventional training setups, risky safety misalignment, and poor generalization. Through empirical analysis, we reveal an important characteristic of LRM behaviors that placing external CoTs generated by smaller models between the thinking token (<think> and </think>) can effectively manipulate the model to generate fewer thoughts. Building on these insights, we propose a simple yet efficient pipeline, ThoughtMani, to enable LRMs to bypass unnecessary intermediate steps and reduce computational costs significantly. We conduct extensive experiments to validate the utility and efficiency of ThoughtMani. For instance, when applied to QwQ-32B on the LiveBench/Code dataset, ThoughtMani keeps the original performance and reduces output token counts by approximately 30%, with little overhead from the CoT generator. Furthermore, we find that ThoughtMani enhances safety alignment by an average of 10%. Since model vendors typically serve models of different sizes simultaneously, ThoughtMani provides an effective way to construct more efficient and accessible LRMs for real-world applications.

While slow-thinking large language models (LLMs) exhibit reflection-like reasoning, commonly referred to as the "aha moment:, their ability to generate informative critiques and refine prior solutions remains limited. In this paper, we introduce Double-Checker, a principled framework designed to enhance the reasoning capabilities of slow-thinking LLMs by fostering explicit self-critique and iterative refinement of their previous solutions. By fine-tuning on our curated 1,730 self-critical instances, Double-Checker empowers long-CoT LLMs to iteratively critique and refine their outputs during inference until they evaluate their solutions as correct under self-generated critiques. We validate the efficacy of Double-Checker across a comprehensive suite of reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating that iterative self-critique significantly enhances the reasoning capabilities of long-CoT LLMs. Notably, our Double-Checker increases the pass@1 performance on challenging AIME benchmarks from 4.4% to 18.2% compared to the original long-CoT LLMs. These results highlight a promising direction for developing more trustworthy and effective LLMs capable of structured self-critique. Our codes and data are available at https://github.com/XinXU-USTC/DoubleChecker

Reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable progress in solving complex and logic-intensive tasks by generating extended Chain-of-Thoughts (CoTs) prior to arriving at a final answer. Yet, the emergence of this "slow-thinking" paradigm, with numerous tokens generated in sequence, inevitably introduces substantial computational overhead. To this end, it highlights an urgent need for effective acceleration. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive overview of recent advances in efficient reasoning. It categorizes existing works into three key directions: (1) shorter - compressing lengthy CoTs into concise yet effective reasoning chains; (2) smaller - developing compact language models with strong reasoning capabilities through techniques such as knowledge distillation, other model compression techniques, and reinforcement learning; and (3) faster - designing efficient decoding strategies to accelerate inference. A curated collection of papers discussed in this survey is available in our GitHub repository.

As large language models (LLMs) transition from research prototypes to production systems, practitioners often need reliable methods to verify that model outputs satisfy required constraints. While sampling-based estimates provide an intuition of model behavior, they offer no sound guarantees. We present BEAVER, the first practical framework for computing deterministic, sound probability bounds on LLM constraint satisfaction. Given any prefix-closed semantic constraint, BEAVER systematically explores the generation space using novel token trie and frontier data structures, maintaining provably sound bounds at every iteration. We formalize the verification problem, prove soundness of our approach, and evaluate BEAVER on correctness verification, privacy verification and secure code generation tasks across multiple state of the art LLMs. BEAVER achieves 6 to 8 times tighter probability bounds and identifies 3 to 4 times more high risk instances compared to baseline methods under identical computational budgets, enabling precise characterization and risk assessment that loose bounds or empirical evaluation cannot provide.

The recent explosion in the capabilities of large language models has led to a wave of interest in how best to prompt a model to perform a given task. While it may be tempting to simply choose a prompt based on average performance on a validation set, this can lead to a deployment where unexpectedly poor responses are generated, especially for the worst-off users. To mitigate this prospect, we propose Prompt Risk Control, a lightweight framework for selecting a prompt based on rigorous upper bounds on families of informative risk measures. We offer methods for producing bounds on a diverse set of metrics, including quantities that measure worst-case responses and disparities in generation quality across the population of users. In addition, we extend the underlying statistical bounding techniques to accommodate the possibility of distribution shifts in deployment. Experiments on applications such as open-ended chat, medical question summarization, and code generation highlight how such a framework can foster responsible deployment by reducing the risk of the worst outcomes.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant advances in reasoning tasks. A key approach is tree-based search with verifiers, which expand candidate reasoning paths and use reward models to guide pruning and selection. Although effective in improving accuracy, these methods are not optimal in terms of efficiency: they perform simple decomposition on the reasoning process, but ignore the planning-execution nature of tasks such as math reasoning or code generation. This results in inefficient exploration of reasoning process. To address this, we propose a dual-phase test-time scaling framework that explicitly separates reasoning into planning and execution, and performs search over the two phases individually. Specifically, we decompose reasoning trajectories and develop reward models for each phase, enabling the search to explore and prune plans and executions separately. We further introduce a dynamic budget allocation mechanism that adaptively redistributes sampling effort based on reward feedback, allowing early stopping on confident steps and reallocation of computation to more challenging parts of the reasoning process. Experiments on both mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks demonstrate that our approach consistently improves accuracy while reducing redundant computation.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate native code interpreters, they enable powerful real-time execution capabilities, substantially expanding their utility. However, such integrations introduce potential system-level cybersecurity threats, fundamentally different from prompt-based vulnerabilities. To systematically evaluate these interpreter-specific risks, we propose CIRCLE (Code-Interpreter Resilience Check for LLM Exploits), a simple benchmark comprising 1,260 prompts targeting CPU, memory, and disk resource exhaustion. Each risk category includes explicitly malicious ("direct") and plausibly benign ("indirect") prompt variants. Our automated evaluation framework assesses not only whether LLMs refuse or generates risky code, but also executes the generated code within the interpreter environment to evaluate code correctness, simplifications made by the LLM to make the code safe, or execution timeouts. Evaluating 7 commercially available models from OpenAI and Google, we uncover significant and inconsistent vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations show substantial disparities even within providers - OpenAI's o4-mini correctly refuses risky requests at 7.1%, notably higher rates compared to GPT-4.1 at 0.5%. Results particularly underscore that indirect, socially-engineered prompts substantially weaken model defenses. This highlights an urgent need for interpreter-specific cybersecurity benchmarks, dedicated mitigation tools (e.g., guardrails), and clear industry standards to guide safe and responsible deployment of LLM interpreter integrations. The benchmark dataset and evaluation code are publicly released to foster further research.

Automating software vulnerability detection (SVD) remains a critical challenge in an era of increasingly complex and interdependent software systems. Despite significant advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) for code analysis, prevailing evaluation methodologies often lack the context-aware robustness necessary to capture real-world intricacies and cross-component interactions. To address these limitations, we present VulnSage, a comprehensive evaluation framework and a dataset curated from diverse, large-scale open-source system software projects developed in C/C++. Unlike prior datasets, it leverages a heuristic noise pre-filtering approach combined with LLM-based reasoning to ensure a representative and minimally noisy spectrum of vulnerabilities. The framework supports multi-granular analysis across function, file, and inter-function levels and employs four diverse zero-shot prompt strategies: Baseline, Chain-of-Thought, Think, and Think & Verify. Through this evaluation, we uncover that structured reasoning prompts substantially improve LLM performance, with Think & Verify reducing ambiguous responses from 20.3% to 9.1% while increasing accuracy. We further demonstrate that code-specialized models consistently outperform general-purpose alternatives, with performance varying significantly across vulnerability types, revealing that no single approach universally excels across all security contexts. Link to dataset and codes: https://github.com/Erroristotle/VulnSage.git

Current mathematical reasoning benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) are approaching saturation, with some achieving > 90% accuracy, and are increasingly compromised by training-set contamination. We introduce Putnam-AXIOM, a benchmark of 522 university-level competition problems drawn from the prestigious William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition, and Putnam-AXIOM Variation, an unseen companion set of 100 functional variants generated by programmatically perturbing variables and constants. The variation protocol produces an unlimited stream of equally difficult, unseen instances -- yielding a contamination-resilient test bed. On the Original set, OpenAI's o1-preview -- the strongest evaluated model -- scores 41.9%, but its accuracy drops by 19.6% (46.8% relative decrease) on the paired Variations. The remaining eighteen models show the same downward trend, ten of them with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. These gaps suggest memorization and highlight the necessity of dynamic benchmarks. We complement "boxed" accuracy with Teacher-Forced Accuracy (TFA), a lightweight metric that directly scores reasoning traces and automates natural language proof evaluations. Putnam-AXIOM therefore provides a rigorous, contamination-resilient evaluation framework for assessing advanced mathematical reasoning of LLMs. Data and evaluation code are publicly available at https://github.com/brando90/putnam-axiom.

We propose a general two-stage algorithm that enjoys a provable scaling law for the test-time compute of large language models (LLMs). Given an input problem, the proposed algorithm first generates N candidate solutions, and then chooses the best one via a multiple-round knockout tournament where each pair of candidates are compared for K times and only the winners move on to the next round. In a minimalistic implementation, both stages can be executed with a black-box LLM alone and nothing else (e.g., no external verifier or reward model), and a total of N times (K + 1) highly parallelizable LLM calls are needed for solving an input problem. Assuming that a generated candidate solution is correct with probability p_{gen} > 0 and a comparison between a pair of correct and incorrect solutions identifies the right winner with probability p_{comp} > 0.5 (i.e., better than a random guess), we prove theoretically that the failure probability of the proposed algorithm decays to zero exponentially with respect to N and K: $P(final output is incorrect) le (1 - p_{gen})^N + lceil log_2 N rceil e^{-2 K (p_{comp} - 0.5)^2}.$ Our empirical results with the challenging MMLU-Pro benchmark validate the technical assumptions, as well as the efficacy of the proposed algorithm and the gains from scaling up its test-time compute.

We propose a novel speculative decoding method tailored for multi-sample reasoning scenarios, such as self-consistency and Best-of-N sampling. Our method exploits the intrinsic consensus of parallel generation paths to synthesize high-quality draft tokens without requiring auxiliary models or external databases. By dynamically analyzing structural patterns across parallel reasoning paths through a probabilistic aggregation mechanism, it identifies consensus token sequences that align with the decoding distribution. Evaluations on mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate a substantial improvement in draft acceptance rates over baselines, while reducing the latency in draft token construction. This work establishes a paradigm shift for efficient multi-sample inference, enabling seamless integration of speculative decoding with sampling-based reasoning techniques.

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.

Counterfactual explanations are attracting significant attention due to the flourishing applications of machine learning models in consequential domains. A counterfactual plan consists of multiple possibilities to modify a given instance so that the model's prediction will be altered. As the predictive model can be updated subject to the future arrival of new data, a counterfactual plan may become ineffective or infeasible with respect to the future values of the model parameters. In this work, we study the counterfactual plans under model uncertainty, in which the distribution of the model parameters is partially prescribed using only the first- and second-moment information. First, we propose an uncertainty quantification tool to compute the lower and upper bounds of the probability of validity for any given counterfactual plan. We then provide corrective methods to adjust the counterfactual plan to improve the validity measure. The numerical experiments validate our bounds and demonstrate that our correction increases the robustness of the counterfactual plans in different real-world datasets.

This paper provides a systematic analysis of the opportunities, challenges, and potential solutions of harnessing Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 to dig out vulnerabilities within smart contracts based on our ongoing research. For the task of smart contract vulnerability detection, achieving practical usability hinges on identifying as many true vulnerabilities as possible while minimizing the number of false positives. Nonetheless, our empirical study reveals contradictory yet interesting findings: generating more answers with higher randomness largely boosts the likelihood of producing a correct answer but inevitably leads to a higher number of false positives. To mitigate this tension, we propose an adversarial framework dubbed GPTLens that breaks the conventional one-stage detection into two synergistic stages - generation and discrimination, for progressive detection and refinement, wherein the LLM plays dual roles, i.e., auditor and critic, respectively. The goal of auditor is to yield a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities with the hope of encompassing the correct answer, whereas the goal of critic that evaluates the validity of identified vulnerabilities is to minimize the number of false positives. Experimental results and illustrative examples demonstrate that auditor and critic work together harmoniously to yield pronounced improvements over the conventional one-stage detection. GPTLens is intuitive, strategic, and entirely LLM-driven without relying on specialist expertise in smart contracts, showcasing its methodical generality and potential to detect a broad spectrum of vulnerabilities. Our code is available at: https://github.com/git-disl/GPTLens.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant advancements in reasoning and code generation. However, efficiently creating new benchmarks to evaluate these capabilities remains a challenge. Traditional benchmark creation relies on manual human effort, a process that is both expensive and time-consuming. Furthermore, existing benchmarks often contaminate LLM training data, necessitating novel and diverse benchmarks to accurately assess their genuine capabilities. This work introduces InfoSynth, a novel framework for automatically generating and evaluating reasoning benchmarks guided by information-theoretic principles. We propose metrics based on KL-divergence and entropy to quantify benchmark novelty and diversity without relying on costly model evaluations. Building on this framework, we develop an end-to-end pipeline that synthesizes robust Python coding problems from seed datasets using genetic algorithms and iterative code feedback. Our method generates accurate test cases and solutions to new problems 97% of the time, and the synthesized benchmarks consistently exhibit higher novelty and diversity compared to their seed datasets. Moreover, our algorithm provides a method for controlling the novelty/diversity and difficulty of generated problems. InfoSynth offers a scalable, self-verifying pipeline for constructing high-quality, novel and diverse benchmarks for LLMs. Project Page: https://ishirgarg.github.io/infosynth_web/

Recent LLMs have significantly improved reasoning capabilities, primarily by including an explicit, lengthy Thinking process as part of generation. In this paper, we question whether this explicit thinking is necessary. Using the state-of-the-art DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen, we find that bypassing the thinking process via simple prompting, denoted as NoThinking, can be surprisingly effective. When controlling for the number of tokens, NoThinking outperforms Thinking across a diverse set of seven challenging reasoning datasets--including mathematical problem solving, formal theorem proving, and coding--especially in low-budget settings, e.g., 51.3 vs. 28.9 on ACM 23 with 700 tokens. Notably, the performance of NoThinking becomes more competitive with pass@k as k increases. Building on this observation, we demonstrate that a parallel scaling approach that uses NoThinking to generate N outputs independently and aggregates them is highly effective. For aggregation, we use task-specific verifiers when available, or we apply simple best-of-N strategies such as confidence-based selection. Our method outperforms a range of baselines with similar latency using Thinking, and is comparable to Thinking with significantly longer latency (up to 9x). Together, our research encourages a reconsideration of the necessity of lengthy thinking processes, while also establishing a competitive reference for achieving strong reasoning performance in low-budget settings or at low latency using parallel scaling.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed via black-box APIs introduces a significant trust challenge: users pay for services based on advertised model capabilities (e.g., size, performance), but providers may covertly substitute the specified model with a cheaper, lower-quality alternative to reduce operational costs. This lack of transparency undermines fairness, erodes trust, and complicates reliable benchmarking. Detecting such substitutions is difficult due to the black-box nature, typically limiting interaction to input-output queries. This paper formalizes the problem of model substitution detection in LLM APIs. We systematically evaluate existing verification techniques, including output-based statistical tests, benchmark evaluations, and log probability analysis, under various realistic attack scenarios like model quantization, randomized substitution, and benchmark evasion. Our findings reveal the limitations of methods relying solely on text outputs, especially against subtle or adaptive attacks. While log probability analysis offers stronger guarantees when available, its accessibility is often limited. We conclude by discussing the potential of hardware-based solutions like Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) as a pathway towards provable model integrity, highlighting the trade-offs between security, performance, and provider adoption. Code is available at https://github.com/sunblaze-ucb/llm-api-audit

Code verification has recently found great success as a critical component in training large scale reasoning models for coding. Synthetic techniques such as self-generated test cases and reward models provide a way to enhance code capabilities beyond predefined tests. Building on these advancements, we propose new benchmarks designed to systematically evaluate the impact of synthetic verification methods on assessing solution correctness. We introduce HE-R, HE-R+, MBPP-R, and MBPP-R+, which transform existing coding benchmarks into scoring and ranking datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic verifiers. Using these benchmarks, we analyze synthetic verification methods in standard, reasoning-based, and reward-based LLMs. Our results show that recent reasoning models significantly improve test case generation and that scaling test cases enhances verification accuracy.

LLM-judged benchmarks are increasingly used to evaluate complex model behaviors, yet their design introduces failure modes absent in conventional ground-truth based benchmarks. We argue that without tight objectives and verifiable constructions, benchmark rankings can produce high-confidence rankings that are in fact largely noise. We introduce two mechanisms to diagnose these issues. Schematic adherence quantifies how much of a judge's overall verdict is explained by the explicit evaluation schema, revealing unexplained variance when judges deviate from their own rubric. Psychometric validity aggregates internal consistency and discriminant validity signals to quantify irreducible uncertainty in any benchmarking run. Applying these tools to Arena-Hard Auto, we find severe schema incoherence and factor collapse across popular judges: for example, unexplained variance exceeding 90 percent for DeepSeek-R1-32B and factor correlations above 0.93 for most criteria. We also show that the ELO-style aggregation used by Arena-Hard Auto collapses and masks genuine ranking uncertainty. Our results highlight design failures that undermine validity and offer actionable principles for building better-scoped, reliability-aware LLM-judged benchmarks. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/judgment-to-noise-947D/README.md

Large language model (LLM)-based reasoning systems have recently achieved gold medal-level performance in the IMO 2025 competition, writing mathematical proofs where, to receive full credit, each step must be not only correct but also sufficiently supported. To train LLM-based reasoners in such challenging, open-ended settings, strong verifiers capable of catching step-level mistakes are necessary prerequisites. We introduce Hard2Verify, a human-annotated, step-level verification benchmark produced with over 500 hours of human labor. Hard2Verify is designed to rigorously assess step-level verifiers at the frontier: Verifiers must provide step-level annotations or identify the first error in responses generated by frontier LLMs for very recent, challenging, and open-ended math questions. We evaluate 29 generative critics and process reward models, demonstrating that, beyond a few standouts, open-source verifiers lag closed source models. We subsequently analyze what drives poor performance in step-level verification, the impacts of scaling verifier compute, as well as fundamental questions such as self-verification and verification-generation dynamics.

As models become increasingly sophisticated, conventional algorithm benchmarks are increasingly saturated, underscoring the need for more challenging benchmarks to guide future improvements in algorithmic reasoning. This paper introduces OIBench, a high-quality, private, and challenging olympiad-level informatics dataset comprising 250 carefully curated original problems. We detail the construction methodology of the benchmark, ensuring a comprehensive assessment across various programming paradigms and complexities, and we demonstrate its contamination-resistant properties via experiments. We propose Time/Space Completion Curves for finer-grained efficiency analysis and enable direct human-model comparisons through high-level participant evaluations. Our experiments reveal that while open-source models lag behind closed-source counterparts, current SOTA models already outperform most human participants in both correctness and efficiency, while still being suboptimal compared to the canonical solutions. By releasing OIBench as a fully open-source resource (https://huggingface.co/datasets/AGI-Eval/OIBench), we hope this benchmark will contribute to advancing code reasoning capabilities for future LLMs.

Recent advances in long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning have largely prioritized answer accuracy and token efficiency, while overlooking aspects critical to trustworthiness. We argue that usable reasoning systems must be trustworthy, characterized by three properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. To this end, we propose ReFIne, a new training framework that integrates supervised fine-tuning with GRPO to encourage models to: (i) improve interpretability by producing structured, tag-based traces with high-level planning that are easier for humans to follow; (ii) enhance faithfulness by explicitly disclosing the decisive information guiding each solution, with consistent cross-section references; and (iii) promote reliability by providing self-assessments of both the derivation's soundness and the confidence of the final answer. We apply ReFIne to the Qwen3 models at multiple scales (1.7B/4B/8B) and evaluate across mathematical benchmarks of varying difficulty. Our experimental results show that ReFIne models generate clearer and better-structured reasoning traces (interpretability +44.0%), more faithfully expose their underlying decision process (faithfulness +18.8%), and offer informative confidence estimates (reliability +42.4%). These findings highlight an overlooked but important direction: reasoning models should be optimized not only for accuracy, but also for broader dimensions of trustworthiness. Our code is available at: https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/Training_Trustworthy_LRM_with_Refine

There has been considerable divergence of opinion on the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). While the initial optimism that reasoning might emerge automatically with scale has been tempered thanks to a slew of counterexamples, a wide spread belief in their iterative self-critique capabilities persists. In this paper, we set out to systematically investigate the effectiveness of iterative prompting of LLMs in the context of Graph Coloring, a canonical NP-complete reasoning problem that is related to propositional satisfiability as well as practical problems like scheduling and allocation. We present a principled empirical study of the performance of GPT4 in solving graph coloring instances or verifying the correctness of candidate colorings. In iterative modes, we experiment with the model critiquing its own answers and an external correct reasoner verifying proposed solutions. In both cases, we analyze whether the content of the criticisms actually affects bottom line performance. The study seems to indicate that (i) LLMs are bad at solving graph coloring instances (ii) they are no better at verifying a solution--and thus are not effective in iterative modes with LLMs critiquing LLM-generated solutions (iii) the correctness and content of the criticisms--whether by LLMs or external solvers--seems largely irrelevant to the performance of iterative prompting. We show that the observed increase in effectiveness is largely due to the correct solution being fortuitously present in the top-k completions of the prompt (and being recognized as such by an external verifier). Our results thus call into question claims about the self-critiquing capabilities of state of the art LLMs.

Recently, high-performing code generation systems based on large language models have surfaced. They are trained on massive corpora containing much more natural text than actual executable computer code. This work shows that current code generation systems exhibit undesired biases inherited from their large language model backbones, which can reduce the quality of the generated code under specific circumstances. To investigate the effect, we propose the "block of influence" concept, which enables a modular decomposition and analysis of the coding challenges. We introduce an automated intervention mechanism reminiscent of adversarial testing that exposes undesired biases through the failure modes of the models under test. Finally, we demonstrate how our framework can be used as a data transformation technique during fine-tuning, acting as a mitigation strategy for these biases.

Despite its crucial role in research experiments, code correctness is often presumed only on the basis of the perceived quality of results. This assumption comes with the risk of erroneous outcomes and potentially misleading findings. To address this issue, we posit that the current focus on reproducibility should go hand in hand with the emphasis on software quality. We present a case study in which we identify and fix three bugs in widely used implementations of the state-of-the-art Conformer architecture. Through experiments on speech recognition and translation in various languages, we demonstrate that the presence of bugs does not prevent the achievement of good and reproducible results, which however can lead to incorrect conclusions that potentially misguide future research. As a countermeasure, we propose a Code-quality Checklist and release pangoliNN, a library dedicated to testing neural models, with the goal of promoting coding best practices and improving research software quality within the NLP community.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has significantly pushed the frontiers of program synthesis. Advancement of LLM-based program synthesis calls for a thorough evaluation of LLM-generated code. Most evaluation frameworks focus on the (functional) correctness of generated code; efficiency, as an important measure of code quality, has been overlooked in existing evaluations. In this work, we develop ENAMEL (EfficeNcy AutoMatic EvaLuator), a rigorous and high-standard benchmark for evaluating the capability of LLMs in generating efficient code. Firstly, we propose a new efficiency metric called eff@k, which generalizes the pass@k metric from correctness to efficiency and appropriately handles right-censored execution time. Furthermore, we derive an unbiased and variance-reduced estimator of eff@k via Rao--Blackwellization; we also provide a numerically stable implementation for the new estimator. Secondly, to set a high-standard for efficiency evaluation, we employ a human expert to design best algorithms and implementations as our reference solutions of efficiency, many of which are much more efficient than existing canonical solutions in HumanEval and HumanEval+. Moreover, to ensure a rigorous evaluation, we employ a human expert to curate strong test case generators to filter out wrong code and differentiate suboptimal algorithms. An extensive study across 30 popular LLMs using our benchmark ENAMEL shows that LLMs still fall short of generating expert-level efficient code. Using two subsets of our problem set, we demonstrate that such deficiency is because current LLMs struggle in designing advanced algorithms and are barely aware of implementation optimization. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/q-rz/enamel .

Investigating the reasoning abilities of transformer models, and discovering new challenging tasks for them, has been a topic of much interest. Recent studies have found these models to be surprisingly strong at performing deductive reasoning over formal logical theories expressed in natural language. A shortcoming of these studies, however, is that they do not take into account that logical theories, when sampled uniformly at random, do not necessarily lead to hard instances. We propose a new methodology for creating challenging algorithmic reasoning datasets that focus on natural language satisfiability (NLSat) problems. The key idea is to draw insights from empirical sampling of hard propositional SAT problems and from complexity-theoretic studies of language. This methodology allows us to distinguish easy from hard instances, and to systematically increase the complexity of existing reasoning benchmarks such as RuleTaker. We find that current transformers, given sufficient training data, are surprisingly robust at solving the resulting NLSat problems of substantially increased difficulty. They also exhibit some degree of scale-invariance - the ability to generalize to problems of larger size and scope. Our results, however, reveal important limitations too: a careful sampling of training data is crucial for building models that generalize to larger problems, and transformer models' limited scale-invariance suggests they are far from learning robust deductive reasoning algorithms.

Using large language models (LLMs) to generate source code from natural language prompts is a popular and promising idea with a wide range of applications. One of its limitations is that the generated code can be faulty at times, often in a subtle way, despite being presented to the user as correct. In this paper, we explore ways in which formal methods can assist with increasing the quality of code generated by an LLM. Instead of emitting code in a target language directly, we propose that the user guides the LLM to first generate an opaque intermediate representation, in the verification-aware language Dafny, that can be automatically validated for correctness against agreed on specifications. The correct Dafny program is then compiled to the target language and returned to the user. All user-system interactions throughout the procedure occur via natural language; Dafny code is never exposed. We describe our current prototype and report on its performance on the HumanEval Python code generation benchmarks.

Solving NP-hard problems traditionally relies on heuristics, yet manually designing effective heuristics for complex problems remains a significant challenge. While recent advancements like FunSearch have shown that large language models (LLMs) can be integrated into evolutionary algorithms (EAs) for heuristic design, their potential is hindered by limitations in balancing exploitation and exploration. We introduce Quality-Uncertainty Balanced Evolution (QUBE), a novel approach that enhances LLM+EA methods by redefining the priority criterion within the FunSearch framework. QUBE employs the Quality-Uncertainty Trade-off Criterion (QUTC), based on our proposed Uncertainty-Inclusive Quality metric, to evaluate and guide the evolutionary process. Through extensive experiments on challenging NP-complete problems, QUBE demonstrates significant performance improvements over FunSearch and baseline methods. Our code are available at https://github.com/zzjchen/QUBE\_code.

We endow Large Language Models (LLMs) with fine-grained self-evaluation to refine multi-step reasoning inference. We propose an effective prompting approach that integrates self-evaluation guidance through stochastic beam search. Our approach explores the reasoning search space using a well-calibrated automatic criterion. This enables an efficient search to produce higher-quality final predictions. With the self-evaluation guided stochastic beam search, we also balance the quality-diversity trade-off in the generation of reasoning chains. This allows our approach to adapt well with majority voting and surpass the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines by 6.34%, 9.56%, and 5.46% on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA benchmarks, respectively, in few-shot accuracy. Analysis of our decompositional reasoning finds it pinpoints logic failures and leads to higher consistency and robustness. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YuxiXie/SelfEval-Guided-Decoding.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) spend substantial test-time compute on long chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, but what *characterizes* an effective CoT remains unclear. While prior work reports gains from lengthening CoTs and increasing review (revisiting earlier steps) via appended *wait* tokens, recent studies suggest that shorter thinking can outperform longer traces. We therefore conduct a systematic evaluation across ten LRMs on math and scientific reasoning. Contrary to the "longer-is-better" narrative, we find that both naive CoT lengthening and increased review are associated with *lower* accuracy. As CoT unfolds step by step, token-level metrics can conflate verbosity with process quality. We introduce a graph view of CoT to extract structure and identify a single statistic-the *Failed-Step Fraction (FSF)*, the fraction of steps in abandoned branches-that consistently outpredicts length and review ratio for correctness across models. To probe causality, we design two interventions. First, we rank candidate CoTs by each metric at test time, where FSF yields the largest pass@1 gains; second, we edit CoTs to remove failed branches, which significantly improves accuracy, indicating that failed branches bias subsequent reasoning. Taken together, these results characterize effective CoTs as those that *fail less* and support *structure-aware* test-time scaling over indiscriminately generating long CoT.

This paper describes our 3^{rd} place submission in the AVeriTeC shared task in which we attempted to address the challenge of fact-checking with evidence retrieved in the wild using a simple scheme of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) designed for the task, leveraging the predictive power of Large Language Models. We release our codebase and explain its two modules - the Retriever and the Evidence & Label generator - in detail, justifying their features such as MMR-reranking and Likert-scale confidence estimation. We evaluate our solution on AVeriTeC dev and test set and interpret the results, picking the GPT-4o as the most appropriate model for our pipeline at the time of our publication, with Llama 3.1 70B being a promising open-source alternative. We perform an empirical error analysis to see that faults in our predictions often coincide with noise in the data or ambiguous fact-checks, provoking further research and data augmentation.

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.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs let us read a model's step-by-step reasoning. Since any long, serial reasoning process must pass through this textual trace, the quality of the CoT is a direct window into what the model is thinking. This visibility could help us spot unsafe or misaligned behavior (monitorability), but only if the CoT is transparent about its internal reasoning (faithfulness). Fully measuring faithfulness is difficult, so researchers often focus on examining the CoT in cases where the model changes its answer after adding a cue to the input. This proxy finds some instances of unfaithfulness but loses information when the model maintains its answer, and does not investigate aspects of reasoning not tied to the cue. We extend these results to a more holistic sense of monitorability by introducing verbosity: whether the CoT lists every factor needed to solve the task. We combine faithfulness and verbosity into a single monitorability score that shows how well the CoT serves as the model's external `working memory', a property that many safety schemes based on CoT monitoring depend on. We evaluate instruction-tuned and reasoning models on BBH, GPQA, and MMLU. Our results show that models can appear faithful yet remain hard to monitor when they leave out key factors, and that monitorability differs sharply across model families. We release our evaluation code using the Inspect library to support reproducible future work.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check. Vibe check is tied to real-world human preference and goes beyond functionality: the solution should feel right, read cleanly, preserve intent, and remain correct. However, current code evaluation remains anchored to pass@k and captures only functional correctness, overlooking the non-functional instructions that users routinely apply. In this paper, we hypothesize that instruction following is the missing piece underlying vibe check that represents human preference in coding besides functional correctness. To quantify models' code instruction following capabilities with measurable signals, we present VeriCode, a taxonomy of 30 verifiable code instructions together with corresponding deterministic verifiers. We use the taxonomy to augment established evaluation suites, resulting in Vibe Checker, a testbed to assess both code instruction following and functional correctness. Upon evaluating 31 leading LLMs, we show that even the strongest models struggle to comply with multiple instructions and exhibit clear functional regression. Most importantly, a composite score of functional correctness and instruction following correlates the best with human preference, with the latter emerging as the primary differentiator on real-world programming tasks. Our work identifies core factors of the vibe check, providing a concrete path for benchmarking and developing models that better align with user preferences in coding.

Advanced LLMs have achieved near-ceiling instruction-following accuracy on benchmarks such as IFEval. However, these impressive scores do not necessarily translate to reliable services in real-world use, where users often vary their phrasing, contextual framing, and task formulations. In this paper, we study nuance-oriented reliability: whether models exhibit consistent competence across cousin prompts that convey analogous user intents but with subtle nuances. To quantify this, we introduce a new metric, reliable@k, and develop an automated pipeline that generates high-quality cousin prompts via data augmentation. Building upon this, we construct IFEval++ for systematic evaluation. Across 20 proprietary and 26 open-source LLMs, we find that current models exhibit substantial insufficiency in nuance-oriented reliability -- their performance can drop by up to 61.8% with nuanced prompt modifications. What's more, we characterize it and explore three potential improvement recipes. Our findings highlight nuance-oriented reliability as a crucial yet underexplored next step toward more dependable and trustworthy LLM behavior. Our code and benchmark are accessible: https://github.com/jianshuod/IFEval-pp.

Large language models for code generation increasingly rely on synthetic data, where both problem solutions and verification tests are generated by models. While this enables scalable data creation, it introduces a previously unexplored bottleneck: the verification ceiling, in which the quality and diversity of training data are fundamentally constrained by the capabilities of synthetic verifiers. In this work, we systematically study how verification design and strategies influence model performance. We investigate (i) what we verify by analyzing the impact of test complexity and quantity: richer test suites improve code generation capabilities (on average +3 pass@1), while quantity alone yields diminishing returns, (ii) how we verify by exploring relaxed pass thresholds: rigid 100% pass criteria can be overly restrictive. By allowing for relaxed thresholds or incorporating LLM-based soft verification, we can recover valuable training data, leading to a 2-4 point improvement in pass@1 performance. However, this benefit is contingent upon the strength and diversity of the test cases used, and (iii) why verification remains necessary through controlled comparisons of formally correct versus incorrect solutions and human evaluation: retaining diverse correct solutions per problem yields consistent generalization gains. Our results show that Verification as currently practiced is too rigid, filtering out valuable diversity. But it cannot be discarded, only recalibrated. By combining calibrated verification with diverse, challenging problem-solution pairs, we outline a path to break the verification ceiling and unlock stronger code generation models.

Large language models are trained on vast amounts of internet data, prompting concerns and speculation that they have memorized public benchmarks. Going from speculation to proof of contamination is challenging, as the pretraining data used by proprietary models are often not publicly accessible. We show that it is possible to provide provable guarantees of test set contamination in language models without access to pretraining data or model weights. Our approach leverages the fact that when there is no data contamination, all orderings of an exchangeable benchmark should be equally likely. In contrast, the tendency for language models to memorize example order means that a contaminated language model will find certain canonical orderings to be much more likely than others. Our test flags potential contamination whenever the likelihood of a canonically ordered benchmark dataset is significantly higher than the likelihood after shuffling the examples. We demonstrate that our procedure is sensitive enough to reliably prove test set contamination in challenging situations, including models as small as 1.4 billion parameters, on small test sets of only 1000 examples, and datasets that appear only a few times in the pretraining corpus. Using our test, we audit five popular publicly accessible language models for test set contamination and find little evidence for pervasive contamination.

Translating natural language mathematical statements into formal, executable code is a fundamental challenge in automated theorem proving. While prior work has focused on generation and compilation success, little attention has been paid to the critic phase-the evaluation of whether generated formalizations truly capture the semantic intent of the original problem. In this paper, we introduce CriticLean, a novel critic-guided reinforcement learning framework that elevates the role of the critic from a passive validator to an active learning component. Specifically, first, we propose the CriticLeanGPT, trained via supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, to rigorously assess the semantic fidelity of Lean 4 formalizations. Then, we introduce CriticLeanBench, a benchmark designed to measure models' ability to distinguish semantically correct from incorrect formalizations, and demonstrate that our trained CriticLeanGPT models can significantly outperform strong open- and closed-source baselines. Building on the CriticLean framework, we construct FineLeanCorpus, a dataset comprising over 285K problems that exhibits rich domain diversity, broad difficulty coverage, and high correctness based on human evaluation. Overall, our findings highlight that optimizing the critic phase is essential for producing reliable formalizations, and we hope our CriticLean will provide valuable insights for future advances in formal mathematical reasoning.

High-quality mathematical and logical datasets with verifiable answers are essential for strengthening the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). While recent data augmentation techniques have facilitated the creation of large-scale benchmarks, existing LLM-generated datasets often suffer from limited reliability, diversity, and scalability. To address these challenges, we introduce PuzzleClone, a formal framework for synthesizing verifiable data at scale using Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). Our approach features three key innovations: (1) encoding seed puzzles into structured logical specifications, (2) generating scalable variants through systematic variable and constraint randomization, and (3) ensuring validity via a reproduction mechanism. Applying PuzzleClone, we construct a curated benchmark comprising over 83K diverse and programmatically validated puzzles. The generated puzzles span a wide spectrum of difficulty and formats, posing significant challenges to current state-of-the-art models. We conduct post training (SFT and RL) on PuzzleClone datasets. Experimental results show that training on PuzzleClone yields substantial improvements not only on PuzzleClone testset but also on logic and mathematical benchmarks. Post training raises PuzzleClone average from 14.4 to 56.2 and delivers consistent improvements across 7 logic and mathematical benchmarks up to 12.5 absolute percentage points (AMC2023 from 52.5 to 65.0). Our code and data are available at https://github.com/puzzleclone.

High quality bugs are key to training the next generation of language model based software engineering (SWE) agents. We introduce a novel method for synthetic generation of difficult and diverse bugs. Our method instructs SWE Agents to introduce a feature into the codebase whereby they may unintentionally break tests, resulting in bugs. Prior approaches often induce an out-of-distribution effect by generating bugs intentionally (e.g. by introducing local perturbation to existing code), which does not reflect realistic development processes. We perform qualitative analysis to demonstrate that our approach for generating bugs more closely reflects the patterns found in human-authored edits. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our bugs provide more efficient training data for supervised fine-tuning, outperforming other bug datasets by 2% with half the training data (1.2k vs. 3k bugs). We train on our newly generated bugs in addition to existing bug datasets to get FrogBoss a state-of-the-art 32B parameter model on SWE-bench Verified with a pass@1 of 54.6% and FrogMini a state-of-the-art 14B model on SWE-bench Verified with a pass@1 of 45.3% on SWE-bench Verified averaged over three seeds.

Code generation techniques generate code snippets automatically based on the problem requirements in natural language. Recently, large language models (LLMs) achieve the SOTA performance on code generation. However, LLMs still struggle at times to generate accurate code, which diminishes their promised efficiency as developers must spend significant effort evaluating and debugging the generated code. To improve the reliability and quality of the generated codes, researchers propose to leverage Consistency to obtain a better code based on generating and ranking multiple candidates. The existing approach is problematic as Consistency thinks a code is better when (1) the code pass more tests (inter-consistency) (2) more codes share the same behavior (intra-consistency). However, because the tests are also generated by LLMs, they could be wrong as well. As a result, majority voting based on testing results is unreliable. Relying solely on consistency is insufficient to address this issue; integrating user feedback is essential for effectively guiding consistency. We show that with minimal human effort, performance can be significantly enhanced. We propose Consistency-Augmented Iterative Interaction Framework to Enhance the Reliability of Code Generation, ConAIR, which is an approach that aims to improve the performance of a code generator through two distinctive ingredients, i.e., (1) lightweight user effort for validating the correctness of selected tests; and (2) a dynamic strategy for ranking, localizing and correcting multiple tests and codes. Overall, we propose a lightweight interaction framework that incorporates user feedback to correct identified tests and guide the iterative process. The iteration rounds are only 4 in average with the help of consistency. With only lightweight human efforts, we can achieve an improvement of 33% towards the base model.

Capability evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly shadowed by rising concerns of data contamination that cast doubts on whether static benchmarks measure genuine reasoning or mere memorization. We present an empirical study using an infinitely scalable framework to synthesize research-level QA directly from arXiv papers, harnessing the natural temporal structure of research publications where performance decay after knowledge cutoffs may indicate potential contamination. We evaluated 4 frontier model represented by 2 models of different knowledge cutoff dates per family on 1,643 multi-step reasoning questions synthesized from 20,277 arXiv papers stratified over 26 months, covering at least 6 months before and after all cutoff dates. Our results consistently showed a lack of significant performance decay near knowledge cutoff dates for models of various sizes, developers, and release dates. We further performed a comparative analysis with previous longitudinal studies that reported significant post-cutoff performance decay using directly retrieved questions based on public data. we hypothesize that the multi-step reasoning required by our synthesis pipeline offered additional complexity that goes deeper than shallow memorization, which effectively serves a mitigation strategy against benchmark contamination. We fully open source our code and dataset to aid reproducibility and advocate for a paradigm shift that prioritize reasoning-driven synthesis to construct benchmarks over simply collecting newly released questions periodically.

LLM agents enhanced by tree search algorithms have yielded notable performances in code generation. However, current search algorithms in this domain suffer from low search quality due to several reasons: 1) Ineffective design of the search space for the high-reasoning demands of code generation tasks, 2) Inadequate integration of code feedback with the search algorithm, and 3) Poor handling of negative feedback during the search, leading to reduced search efficiency and quality. To address these challenges, we propose to search for the reasoning process of the code and use the detailed feedback of code execution to refine erroneous thoughts during the search. In this paper, we introduce RethinkMCTS, which employs the Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) algorithm to conduct thought-level searches before generating code, thereby exploring a wider range of strategies. More importantly, we construct verbal feedback from fine-grained code execution feedback to refine erroneous thoughts during the search. This ensures that the search progresses along the correct reasoning paths, thus improving the overall search quality of the tree by leveraging execution feedback. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that RethinkMCTS outperforms previous search-based and feedback-based code generation baselines. On the HumanEval dataset, it improves the pass@1 of GPT-3.5-turbo from 70.12 to 89.02 and GPT-4o-mini from 87.20 to 94.51. It effectively conducts more thorough exploration through thought-level searches and enhances the search quality of the entire tree by incorporating rethink operation.

Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable progress on task-specific benchmarks, yet their evaluation methods remain constrained by isolated problem-solving paradigms. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess single-question reasoning through sequential testing, resulting critical limitations: (1) vulnerability to data contamination and less challenging (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 achieves 97.0% on MATH500), forcing costly and perpetual creation of new questions with large human efforts, (2) failure to evaluate models under multi-context pressure, a key requirement for real-world deployment. To bridge this gap, we present REST (Reasoning Evaluation through Simultaneous Testing), a stress-testing framework that concurrently exposes LRMs to multiple problems simultaneously. Beyond basic reasoning, REST specifically evaluates several under-tested capabilities: contextual priority allocation, cross-problem interference resistance, and dynamic cognitive load management. Our evaluation reveals several striking findings: Even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models like DeepSeek-R1 exhibit substantial performance degradation under stress testing. Crucially, REST demonstrates stronger discriminative power than existing benchmarks, revealing pronounced performance differences among models that exhibit similar, near-ceiling performance under single-question evaluations. Some key mechanistic insights emerge from our analysis: (1) the "overthinking trap" is a critical factor contributing to the performance degradation; (2) the models trained with "long2short" technique preserve more accuracy of their single-problem performance under REST, outperforming standard-trained counterparts. These results establish REST as a cost-efficient, future-proof evaluation paradigm that better reflects real-world reasoning demands while reducing reliance on continuous human annotation.

LLMs are highly sensitive to prompt phrasing, yet standard benchmarks typically report performance using a single prompt, raising concerns about the reliability of such evaluations. In this work, we argue for a stochastic method of moments evaluation over the space of meaning-preserving prompt perturbations. We introduce a formal definition of reliable evaluation that accounts for prompt sensitivity, and suggest ReliableEval - a method for estimating the number of prompt resamplings needed to obtain meaningful results. Using our framework, we stochastically evaluate five frontier LLMs and find that even top-performing models like GPT-4o and Claude-3.7-Sonnet exhibit substantial prompt sensitivity. Our approach is model-, task-, and metric-agnostic, offering a recipe for meaningful and robust LLM evaluation.

This paper introduces Patched Round-Trip Correctness (Patched RTC), a novel evaluation technique for Large Language Models (LLMs) applied to diverse software development tasks, particularly focusing on "outer loop" activities such as bug fixing, code review, and documentation updates. Patched RTC extends the original Round-Trip Correctness method to work with any LLM and downstream task, offering a self-evaluating framework that measures consistency and robustness of model responses without human intervention. The study demonstrates a correlation between Patched RTC scores and task-specific accuracy metrics, presenting it as an alternative to the LLM-as-Judge paradigm for open-domain task evaluation. We implement Patched RTC in an open-source framework called patchwork, allowing for transparent evaluation during inference across various patchflows. Experiments comparing GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models across different software development tasks reveal that Patched RTC effectively distinguishes model performance and task difficulty. The paper also explores the impact of consistency prompts on improving model accuracy, suggesting that Patched RTC can guide prompt refinement and model selection for complex software development workflows.

We present CRUXEval (Code Reasoning, Understanding, and eXecution Evaluation), a benchmark consisting of 800 Python functions (3-13 lines). Each function comes with an input-output pair, leading to two natural tasks: input prediction and output prediction. First, we propose a generic recipe for generating our execution benchmark which can be used to create future variation of the benchmark. Second, we evaluate twenty code models on our benchmark and discover that many recent high-scoring models on HumanEval do not show the same improvements on our benchmark. Third, we show that simple CoT and fine-tuning schemes can improve performance on our benchmark but remain far from solving it. The best setup, GPT-4 with chain of thought (CoT), achieves a pass@1 of 75% and 81% on input and output prediction, respectively. In contrast, Code Llama 34B achieves a pass@1 of 50% and 46% on input and output prediction, highlighting the gap between open and closed source models. As no model is close to acing CRUXEval, we provide examples of consistent GPT-4 failures on simple programs as a lens into its code reasoning capabilities and areas for improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated an impressive ability to generate code for various programming tasks. In many instances, LLMs can generate a correct program for a task when given numerous trials. Consequently, a recent trend is to do large scale sampling of programs using a model and then filtering/ranking the programs based on the program execution on a small number of known unit tests to select one candidate solution. However, these approaches assume that the unit tests are given and assume the ability to safely execute the generated programs (which can do arbitrary dangerous operations such as file manipulations). Both of the above assumptions are impractical in real-world software development. In this paper, we propose CodeRanker, a neural ranker that can predict the correctness of a sampled program without executing it. Our CodeRanker is fault-aware i.e., it is trained to predict different kinds of execution information such as predicting the exact compile/runtime error type (e.g., an IndexError or a TypeError). We show that CodeRanker can significantly increase the pass@1 accuracy of various code generation models (including Codex, GPT-Neo, GPT-J) on APPS, HumanEval and MBPP datasets.

The Right to Explanation and the Right to be Forgotten are two important principles outlined to regulate algorithmic decision making and data usage in real-world applications. While the right to explanation allows individuals to request an actionable explanation for an algorithmic decision, the right to be forgotten grants them the right to ask for their data to be deleted from all the databases and models of an organization. Intuitively, enforcing the right to be forgotten may trigger model updates which in turn invalidate previously provided explanations, thus violating the right to explanation. In this work, we investigate the technical implications arising due to the interference between the two aforementioned regulatory principles, and propose the first algorithmic framework to resolve the tension between them. To this end, we formulate a novel optimization problem to generate explanations that are robust to model updates due to the removal of training data instances by data deletion requests. We then derive an efficient approximation algorithm to handle the combinatorial complexity of this optimization problem. We theoretically demonstrate that our method generates explanations that are provably robust to worst-case data deletion requests with bounded costs in case of linear models and certain classes of non-linear models. Extensive experimentation with real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework.

Code generation with large language models (LLMs), often termed vibe coding, is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality, particularly in security (e.g., SQL injection vulnerabilities) and maintainability (e.g., missing type annotations). Existing methods, such as supervised fine-tuning and rule-based post-processing, rely on labor-intensive annotations or brittle heuristics, limiting their scalability and effectiveness. We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code using program analysis-guided feedback. Specifically, REAL integrates two automated signals: (1) program analysis detecting security or maintainability defects and (2) unit tests ensuring functional correctness. Unlike prior work, our framework is prompt-agnostic and reference-free, enabling scalable supervision without manual intervention. Experiments across multiple datasets and model scales demonstrate that REAL outperforms state-of-the-art methods in simultaneous assessments of functionality and code quality. Our work bridges the gap between rapid prototyping and production-ready code, enabling LLMs to deliver both speed and quality.

The emergence of pre-trained AI systems with powerful capabilities across a diverse and ever-increasing set of complex domains has raised a critical challenge for AI safety as tasks can become too complicated for humans to judge directly. Irving et al. [2018] proposed a debate method in this direction with the goal of pitting the power of such AI models against each other until the problem of identifying (mis)-alignment is broken down into a manageable subtask. While the promise of this approach is clear, the original framework was based on the assumption that the honest strategy is able to simulate deterministic AI systems for an exponential number of steps, limiting its applicability. In this paper, we show how to address these challenges by designing a new set of debate protocols where the honest strategy can always succeed using a simulation of a polynomial number of steps, whilst being able to verify the alignment of stochastic AI systems, even when the dishonest strategy is allowed to use exponentially many simulation steps.

As LLMs see wide adoption in software engineering, the reliable assessment of the correctness and security of LLM-generated code is crucial. Notably, prior work has demonstrated that security is often overlooked, exposing that LLMs are prone to generating code with security vulnerabilities. These insights were enabled by specialized benchmarks, crafted through significant manual effort by security experts. However, relying on manually-crafted benchmarks is insufficient in the long term, because benchmarks (i) naturally end up contaminating training data, (ii) must extend to new tasks to provide a more complete picture, and (iii) must increase in difficulty to challenge more capable LLMs. In this work, we address these challenges and present AutoBaxBuilder, a framework that generates tasks and tests for code security benchmarking from scratch. We introduce a robust pipeline with fine-grained plausibility checks, leveraging the code understanding capabilities of LLMs to construct functionality tests and end-to-end security-probing exploits. To confirm the quality of the generated benchmark, we conduct both a qualitative analysis and perform quantitative experiments, comparing it against tasks constructed by human experts. We use AutoBaxBuilder to construct entirely new tasks and release them to the public as AutoBaxBench, together with a thorough evaluation of the security capabilities of LLMs on these tasks. We find that a new task can be generated in under 2 hours, costing less than USD 10.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in complex problem-solving through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, the multi-step nature of CoT introduces new safety challenges that extend beyond conventional language model alignment. We identify a failure mode in current safety CoT tuning methods: the snowball effect, where minor reasoning deviations progressively amplify throughout the thought process, leading to either harmful compliance or excessive refusal. This effect stems from models being trained to imitate perfect reasoning scripts without learning to self-correct. To address this limitation, we propose AdvChain, an alignment paradigm that teaches models dynamic self-correction through adversarial CoT tuning. Our method involves constructing a dataset containing Temptation-Correction and Hesitation-Correction samples, where models learn to recover from harmful reasoning drifts and unnecessary cautions. Extensive experiments show that AdvChain significantly enhances robustness against jailbreak attacks and CoT hijacking while substantially reducing over-refusal on benign prompts, achieving a superior safety-utility balance without compromising reasoning capabilities. Our work establishes a new direction for building more robust and reliable reasoning models.

Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.

Randomized mechanisms can have good normative properties compared to their deterministic counterparts. However, randomized mechanisms are problematic in several ways such as in their verifiability. We propose here to derandomize such mechanisms by having agents play a game instead of tossing a coin. The game is designed so an agent's best action is to play randomly, and this play then injects ``randomness'' into the mechanism. This derandomization retains many of the good normative properties of the original randomized mechanism but gives a mechanism that is deterministic and easy, for instance, to audit. We consider three related methods to derandomize randomized mechanism in six different domains: voting, facility location, task allocation, school choice, peer selection, and resource allocation. We propose a number of novel derandomized mechanisms for these six domains with good normative properties. Each mechanism has a mixed Nash equilibrium in which agents play a modular arithmetic game with an uniform mixed strategy. In all but one mixed Nash equilibrium, agents report their preferences over the original problem sincerely. The derandomized methods are thus ``quasi-strategy proof''. In one domain, we additionally show that a new and desirable normative property emerges as a result of derandomization.

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/

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) expands, the demand for reliable evaluations increases. Existing LLM evaluation benchmarks primarily rely on static datasets, making it challenging to assess model performance in dynamic interactions with users. Moreover, these benchmarks often depend on specific background knowledge, complicating the measurement of a model's logical reasoning capabilities. Other dynamic evaluation methods based on strong models or manual efforts may introduce biases and incur high costs and time demands, hindering large-scale application. To address these issues, we propose TurtleBench. TurtleBench collects real user guesses from our online Turtle Soup Puzzle platform that we developed. This approach allows for the relatively dynamic generation of evaluation datasets, mitigating the risk of model cheating while aligning assessments more closely with genuine user needs for reasoning capabilities, thus enhancing the reliability of evaluations. TurtleBench includes 1,532 user guesses along with the correctness of guesses after annotation. Using this dataset, we thoroughly evaluated nine of the most advanced LLMs available today. Notably, the OpenAI o1 series models did not achieve leading results in these evaluations. We propose several hypotheses for further research, such as "the latent reasoning of o1 utilizes trivial Chain-of-Thought (CoT) techniques" and "increasing CoT length not only provides reasoning benefits but also incurs noise costs."

As machine learning tools progress, the inevitable question arises: How can machine learning help us write better code? With significant progress being achieved in natural language processing with models like GPT-3 and Bert, the applications of natural language processing techniques to code are starting to be explored. Most of the research has been focused on automatic program repair (APR), and while the results on synthetic or highly filtered datasets are promising, such models are hard to apply in real-world scenarios because of inadequate bug localization. We propose BigIssue: a benchmark for realistic bug localization. The goal of the benchmark is two-fold. We provide (1) a general benchmark with a diversity of real and synthetic Java bugs and (2) a motivation to improve bug localization capabilities of models through attention to the full repository context. With the introduction of BigIssue, we hope to advance the state of the art in bug localization, in turn improving APR performance and increasing its applicability to the modern development cycle.

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.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a critical aspect of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly in high-risk domains such as healthcare, autonomous systems, and financial technology, where decision-making processes must account for uncertainty. This review explores the evolution of uncertainty quantification techniques in AI, distinguishing between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, and discusses the mathematical foundations and methods used to quantify these uncertainties. We provide an overview of advanced techniques, including probabilistic methods, ensemble learning, sampling-based approaches, and generative models, while also highlighting hybrid approaches that integrate domain-specific knowledge. Furthermore, we examine the diverse applications of UQ across various fields, emphasizing its impact on decision-making, predictive accuracy, and system robustness. The review also addresses key challenges such as scalability, efficiency, and integration with explainable AI, and outlines future directions for research in this rapidly developing area. Through this comprehensive survey, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of UQ's role in enhancing the reliability, safety, and trustworthiness of AI systems.

Context: Exhaustive fuzzing of modern JavaScript engines is infeasible due to the vast number of program states and execution paths. Coverage-guided fuzzers waste effort on low-risk inputs, often ignoring vulnerability-triggering ones that do not increase coverage. Existing heuristics proposed to mitigate this require expert effort, are brittle, and hard to adapt. Objective: We propose a data-centric, LLM-boosted alternative that learns from historical vulnerabilities to automatically identify minimal static (code) and dynamic (runtime) features for detecting high-risk inputs. Method: Guided by historical V8 bugs, iterative prompting generated 115 static and 49 dynamic features, with the latter requiring only five trace flags, minimizing instrumentation cost. After feature selection, 41 features remained to train an XGBoost model to predict high-risk inputs during fuzzing. Results: Combining static and dynamic features yields over 85% precision and under 1% false alarms. Only 25% of these features are needed for comparable performance, showing that most of the search space is irrelevant. Conclusion: This work introduces feature-guided fuzzing, an automated data-driven approach that replaces coverage with data-directed inference, guiding fuzzers toward high-risk states for faster, targeted, and reproducible vulnerability discovery. To support open science, all scripts and data are available at https://github.com/KKGanguly/DataCentricFuzzJS .

As a seemingly self-explanatory task, problem-solving has been a significant component of science and engineering. However, a general yet concrete formulation of problem-solving itself is missing. With the recent development of AI-based problem-solving agents, the demand for process-level verifiability is rapidly increasing yet underexplored. To fill these gaps, we present a principled formulation of problem-solving as a deterministic Markov decision process; a novel framework, FPS (Formal Problem-Solving), which utilizes existing FTP (formal theorem proving) environments to perform process-verified problem-solving; and D-FPS (Deductive FPS), decoupling solving and answer verification for better human-alignment. The expressiveness, soundness and completeness of the frameworks are proven. We construct three benchmarks on problem-solving: FormalMath500, a formalization of a subset of the MATH500 benchmark; MiniF2F-Solving and PutnamBench-Solving, adaptations of FTP benchmarks MiniF2F and PutnamBench. For faithful, interpretable, and human-aligned evaluation, we propose RPE (Restricted Propositional Equivalence), a symbolic approach to determine the correctness of answers by formal verification. We evaluate four prevalent FTP models and two prompting methods as baselines, solving at most 23.77% of FormalMath500, 27.47% of MiniF2F-Solving, and 0.31% of PutnamBench-Solving.

We present a generic framework for creating differentially private versions of any hypothesis test in a black-box way. We analyze the resulting tests analytically and experimentally. Most crucially, we show good practical performance for small data sets, showing that at epsilon = 1 we only need 5-6 times as much data as in the fully public setting. We compare our work to the one existing framework of this type, as well as to several individually-designed private hypothesis tests. Our framework is higher power than other generic solutions and at least competitive with (and often better than) individually-designed tests.

Large language models (LLMs) now write code in settings where misreading a single word can break safety or cost money, yet we still expect them to overlook stray typos. To probe where useful robustness ends and harmful insensitivity begins, we compile 50 LeetCode problems and craft three minimal prompt perturbations that should vary in importance: (i) progressive underspecification deleting 10 % of words per step; (ii) lexical flip swapping a pivotal quantifier ("max" to "min"); and (iii) jargon inflation replacing a common noun with an obscure technical synonym. Six frontier models, including three "reasoning-tuned" versions, solve each mutated prompt, and their Python outputs are checked against the original test suites to reveal whether they reused the baseline solution or adapted. Among 11 853 generations we observe a sharp double asymmetry. Models remain correct in 85 % of cases even after 90 % of the prompt is missing, showing over-robustness to underspecification, yet only 54 % react to a single quantifier flip that reverses the task, with reasoning-tuned variants even less sensitive than their bases. Jargon edits lie in between, passing through 56 %. Current LLMs thus blur the line between harmless noise and meaning - changing edits, often treating both as ignorable. Masking salient anchors such as function names can force re - evaluation. We advocate evaluation and training protocols that reward differential sensitivity: stay steady under benign noise but adapt - or refuse - when semantics truly change.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on mathematical benchmarks. At the same time, they are prone to hallucination and sycophancy, often providing convincing but flawed proofs for incorrect mathematical statements provided by users. This significantly limits the applicability of LLMs in theorem proving, as verification of these flawed proofs must be done manually by expert mathematicians. However, existing benchmarks that measure sycophancy in mathematics are limited: they focus solely on final-answer problems, rely on very simple and often contaminated datasets, and construct benchmark samples using synthetic modifications that create ill-posed questions rather than well-posed questions that are demonstrably false. To address these issues, we introduce BrokenMath, the first benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in LLMs within the context of natural language theorem proving. BrokenMath is built from advanced 2025 competition problems, which are perturbed with an LLM to produce false statements and subsequently refined through expert review. Using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time. We further investigate several mitigation strategies, including test-time interventions and supervised fine-tuning on curated sycophantic examples. These approaches substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, sycophantic behavior.

Search agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in tackling knowledge-intensive tasks. Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for training these agents to perform complex, multi-step reasoning. However, prior RL-based methods often rely on sparse or rule-based rewards, which can lead agents to commit to suboptimal or erroneous reasoning paths without the ability to recover. To address these limitations, we propose ReSeek, a novel self-correcting framework for training search agents. Our framework introduces a self-correction mechanism that empowers the agent to dynamically identify and recover from erroneous search paths during an episode. By invoking a special JUDGE action, the agent can judge the information and re-plan its search strategy. To guide this process, we design a dense, instructive process reward function, which decomposes into a correctness reward for retrieving factual information and a utility reward for finding information genuinely useful for the query. Furthermore, to mitigate the risk of data contamination in existing datasets, we introduce FictionalHot, a new and challenging benchmark with recently curated questions requiring complex reasoning. Being intuitively reasonable and practically simple, extensive experiments show that agents trained with ReSeek significantly outperform SOTA baselines in task success rate and path faithfulness.

This paper proposes a novel column generation framework for combinatorial software testing. In particular, it combines Mathematical Programming and Constraint Programming in a hybrid decomposition to generate covering arrays. The approach allows generating parameterized test cases with coverage guarantees between parameter interactions of a given application. Compared to exhaustive testing, combinatorial test case generation reduces the number of tests to run significantly. Our column generation algorithm is generic and can accommodate mixed coverage arrays over heterogeneous alphabets. The algorithm is realized in practice as a cloud service and recognized as one of the five winners of the company-wide cloud application challenge at Oracle. The service is currently helping software developers from a range of different product teams in their testing efforts while exposing declarative constraint models and hybrid optimization techniques to a broader audience.

Large language models often produce plausible but incorrect outputs. Existing heuristics such as HallBayes lack formal guarantees. We develop the first comprehensive theory of information-lift certificates under selective classification. Our contributions are: (i) a PAC-Bayes sub-gamma analysis extending beyond standard Bernstein bounds; (ii) explicit skeleton sensitivity theorems quantifying robustness to misspecification; (iii) failure-mode guarantees under assumption violations; and (iv) a principled variational method for skeleton construction. Across six datasets and multiple model families, we validate assumptions empirically, reduce abstention by 12--15\% at the same risk, and maintain runtime overhead below 20\% (further reduced via batching).

Existing benchmarks do not test language agents on their interaction with human users or ability to follow domain-specific rules, both of which are vital for deploying them in real world applications. We propose tau-bench, a benchmark emulating dynamic conversations between a user (simulated by language models) and a language agent provided with domain-specific API tools and policy guidelines. We employ an efficient and faithful evaluation process that compares the database state at the end of a conversation with the annotated goal state. We also propose a new metric (pass^k) to evaluate the reliability of agent behavior over multiple trials. Our experiments show that even state-of-the-art function calling agents (like gpt-4o) succeed on <50% of the tasks, and are quite inconsistent (pass^8 <25% in retail). Our findings point to the need for methods that can improve the ability of agents to act consistently and follow rules reliably.

Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning for complex tasks inherently involves a trade-off between solution accuracy and computational efficiency. The subsequent step of verification, while intended to improve performance, further complicates this landscape by introducing its own challenging trade-off: sophisticated Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) can be computationally prohibitive if naively integrated with LLMs at test-time, while simpler, faster methods may lack reliability. To overcome these challenges, we introduce FlexiVe, a novel generative verifier that flexibly balances computational resources between rapid, reliable fast thinking and meticulous slow thinking using a Flexible Allocation of Verification Budget strategy. We further propose the Solve-Detect-Verify pipeline, an efficient inference-time scaling framework that intelligently integrates FlexiVe, proactively identifying solution completion points to trigger targeted verification and provide focused solver feedback. Experiments show FlexiVe achieves superior accuracy in pinpointing errors within reasoning traces on ProcessBench. Furthermore, on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks (AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and CNMO), our full approach outperforms baselines like self-consistency in reasoning accuracy and inference efficiency. Our system offers a scalable and effective solution to enhance LLM reasoning at test time.

We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems. Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a story context and conditions using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-assisted and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. SATBench exposes fundamental limitations in the search-based logical reasoning abilities of current LLMs and provides a scalable testbed for future research in logical reasoning.

The effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) is heavily influenced by the reasoning strategies, or styles of thought, employed in their prompts. However, the interplay between these reasoning styles, model architecture, and task type remains poorly understood. To address this, we introduce StyleBench, a comprehensive benchmark for systematically evaluating reasoning styles across diverse tasks and models. We assess five representative reasoning styles, including Chain of Thought (CoT), Tree of Thought (ToT), Algorithm of Thought (AoT), Sketch of Thought (SoT), and Chain-of-Draft (CoD) on five reasoning tasks, using 15 open-source models from major families (LLaMA, Qwen, Mistral, Gemma, GPT-OSS, Phi, and DeepSeek) ranging from 270M to 120B parameters. Our large-scale analysis reveals that no single style is universally optimal. We demonstrate that strategy efficacy is highly contingent on both model scale and task type: search-based methods (AoT, ToT) excel in open-ended problems but require large-scale models, while concise styles (SoT, CoD) achieve radical efficiency gains on well-defined tasks. Furthermore, we identify key behavioral patterns: smaller models frequently fail to follow output instructions and default to guessing, while reasoning robustness emerges as a function of scale. Our findings offer a crucial roadmap for selecting optimal reasoning strategies based on specific constraints, we open source the benchmark in https://github.com/JamesJunyuGuo/Style_Bench.

The demonstrated code-understanding capability of LLMs raises the question of whether they can be used for automated program verification, a task that often demands high-level abstract reasoning about program properties, which is challenging for verification tools. We propose a general methodology to combine the power of LLMs and automated reasoners for automated program verification. We formally describe this methodology as a set of derivation rules and prove its soundness. We instantiate the calculus as a sound automated verification procedure, which led to practical improvements on a set of synthetic and competition benchmarks.

Large Language models (LLMs) can generate complicated source code from natural language prompts. However, LLMs can generate output that deviates from what the user wants, requiring supervision and editing. To support this process, we offer techniques to localize where generations might be misaligned from user intent. We first create a dataset of "Minimal Intent Aligning Patches" of repaired LLM generated programs. Each program uses test cases to verify correctness. After creating a dataset of programs, we measure how well various techniques can assign a well-calibrated probability to indicate which parts of code will be edited in a minimal patch (i.e., give a probability that corresponds with empirical odds it is edited). We compare white-box probing (where we propose a technique for efficient arbitrary-span querying), against black-box reflective and self-consistency based approaches. We find probes with a small supervisor model can achieve low calibration error and Brier Skill Score of approx 0.2 estimating edited lines on code generated by models many orders of magnitude larger. We discuss the generalizability of the techniques, and the connections to AI oversight and control, finding a probe trained only on code shows some signs of generalizing to natural language errors if new probability scaling is allowed.

LLM-based formal proof assistants (e.g., in Lean) hold great promise for automating mathematical discovery. But beyond syntactic correctness, do these systems truly understand mathematical structure as humans do? We investigate this question through the lens of mathematical inequalities -- a fundamental tool across many domains. While modern provers can solve basic inequalities, we probe their ability to handle human-intuitive compositionality. We introduce Ineq-Comp, a benchmark built from elementary inequalities through systematic transformations, including variable duplication, algebraic rewriting, and multi-step composition. Although these problems remain easy for humans, we find that most provers -- including Goedel, STP, and Kimina-7B -- struggle significantly. DeepSeek-Prover-V2-7B shows relative robustness -- possibly because it is trained to decompose the problems into sub-problems -- but still suffers a 20\% performance drop (pass@32). Strikingly, performance remains poor for all models even when formal proofs of the constituent parts are provided in context, revealing that the source of weakness is indeed in compositional reasoning. Our results expose a persisting gap between the generalization behavior of current AI provers and human mathematical intuition.

Inference-time scaling via repeated sampling has shown promise in reasoning tasks, but its effectiveness in multilingual generation remains underexplored. We evaluate this approach using perplexity- and reward-based verifiers on two multilingual benchmarks: the Aya Evaluation Suite and m-ArenaHard. Our results show consistent quality improvements, with gains exceeding 35% in some cases. While perplexity-based scoring is effective for open-ended prompts, only reward-based verifiers improve performance on tasks requiring reasoning (e.g., math, code). Our results demonstrate the broader utility of repeated sampling for multilingual text generation and underscore the importance of selecting right verifiers for the task.

First-order logic (FOL) reasoning, which involves sequential deduction, is pivotal for intelligent systems and serves as a valuable task for evaluating reasoning capabilities, particularly in chain-of-thought (CoT) contexts. Existing benchmarks often rely on extensive human annotation or handcrafted templates, making it difficult to achieve the necessary complexity, scalability, and diversity for robust evaluation. To address these limitations, we propose a novel framework called ProverGen that synergizes the generative strengths of Large Language Models (LLMs) with the rigor and precision of symbolic provers, enabling the creation of a scalable, diverse, and high-quality FOL reasoning dataset, ProverQA. ProverQA is also distinguished by its inclusion of accessible and logically coherent intermediate reasoning steps for each problem. Our evaluation shows that state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to solve ProverQA problems, even with CoT prompting, highlighting the dataset's challenging nature. We also finetune Llama3.1-8B-Instruct on a separate training set generated by our framework. The finetuned model demonstrates consistent improvements on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution test sets, suggesting the value of our proposed data generation framework. Code available at: https://github.com/opendatalab/ProverGen

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in code generation, achieving high scores on benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP. However, these benchmarks primarily assess functional correctness and neglect broader dimensions of code quality, including security, reliability, readability, and maintainability. In this work, we systematically evaluate the ability of LLMs to generate high-quality code across multiple dimensions using the PythonSecurityEval benchmark. We introduce an iterative static analysis-driven prompting algorithm that leverages Bandit and Pylint to identify and resolve code quality issues. Our experiments with GPT-4o show substantial improvements: security issues reduced from >40% to 13%, readability violations from >80% to 11%, and reliability warnings from >50% to 11% within ten iterations. These results demonstrate that LLMs, when guided by static analysis feedback, can significantly enhance code quality beyond functional correctness.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) suggest great promises in code and proof generations. However, scaling automated formal verification to real-world projects requires resolving cross-module dependencies and global contexts, which are crucial challenges overlooked by existing LLM-based methods with a special focus on targeting isolated, function-level verification tasks. To systematically explore and address the significant challenges of verifying entire software repositories, we introduce RVBench, the first verification benchmark explicitly designed for repository-level evaluation, constructed from four diverse and complex open-source Verus projects. We further introduce RagVerus, an extensible framework that synergizes retrieval-augmented generation with context-aware prompting to automate proof synthesis for multi-module repositories. RagVerus triples proof pass rates on existing benchmarks under constrained model inference budgets, and achieves a 27% relative improvement on the more challenging RVBench benchmark, demonstrating a scalable and sample-efficient verification solution.

Rigorous statistical evaluations of large language models (LLMs), including valid error bars and significance testing, are essential for meaningful and reliable performance assessment. Currently, when such statistical measures are reported, they typically rely on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In this position paper, we argue that while CLT-based methods for uncertainty quantification are appropriate when benchmarks consist of thousands of examples, they fail to provide adequate uncertainty estimates for LLM evaluations that rely on smaller, highly specialized benchmarks. In these small-data settings, we demonstrate that CLT-based methods perform very poorly, usually dramatically underestimating uncertainty (i.e. producing error bars that are too small). We give recommendations for alternative frequentist and Bayesian methods that are both easy to implement and more appropriate in these increasingly common scenarios. We provide a simple Python library for these Bayesian methods at https://github.com/sambowyer/bayes_evals .

Safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) sometimes falsely refuse pseudo-harmful prompts, like "how to kill a mosquito," which are actually harmless. Frequent false refusals not only frustrate users but also provoke a public backlash against the very values alignment seeks to protect. In this paper, we propose the first method to auto-generate diverse, content-controlled, and model-dependent pseudo-harmful prompts. Using this method, we construct an evaluation dataset called PHTest, which is ten times larger than existing datasets, covers more false refusal patterns, and separately labels controversial prompts. We evaluate 20 LLMs on PHTest, uncovering new insights due to its scale and labeling. Our findings reveal a trade-off between minimizing false refusals and improving safety against jailbreak attacks. Moreover, we show that many jailbreak defenses significantly increase the false refusal rates, thereby undermining usability. Our method and dataset can help developers evaluate and fine-tune safer and more usable LLMs. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/umd-huang-lab/FalseRefusal

We consider multi-draft speculative sampling, where the proposal sequences are sampled independently from different draft models. At each step, a token-level draft selection scheme takes a list of valid tokens as input and produces an output token whose distribution matches that of the target model. Previous works have demonstrated that the optimal scheme (which maximizes the probability of accepting one of the input tokens) can be cast as a solution to a linear program. In this work we show that the optimal scheme can be decomposed into a two-step solution: in the first step an importance sampling (IS) type scheme is used to select one intermediate token; in the second step (single-draft) speculative sampling is applied to generate the output token. For the case of two identical draft models we further 1) establish a necessary and sufficient condition on the distributions of the target and draft models for the acceptance probability to equal one and 2) provide an explicit expression for the optimal acceptance probability. Our theoretical analysis also motives a new class of token-level selection scheme based on weighted importance sampling. Our experimental results demonstrate consistent improvements in the achievable block efficiency and token rates over baseline schemes in a number of scenarios.

We consider the task of evaluating policies of algorithmic resource allocation through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Such policies are tasked with optimizing the utilization of limited intervention resources, with the goal of maximizing the benefits derived. Evaluation of such allocation policies through RCTs proves difficult, notwithstanding the scale of the trial, because the individuals' outcomes are inextricably interlinked through resource constraints controlling the policy decisions. Our key contribution is to present a new estimator leveraging our proposed novel concept, that involves retrospective reshuffling of participants across experimental arms at the end of an RCT. We identify conditions under which such reassignments are permissible and can be leveraged to construct counterfactual trials, whose outcomes can be accurately ascertained, for free. We prove theoretically that such an estimator is more accurate than common estimators based on sample means -- we show that it returns an unbiased estimate and simultaneously reduces variance. We demonstrate the value of our approach through empirical experiments on synthetic, semi-synthetic as well as real case study data and show improved estimation accuracy across the board.

We explore uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs), with the goal to identify when uncertainty in responses given a query is large. We simultaneously consider both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties, where the former comes from the lack of knowledge about the ground truth (such as about facts or the language), and the latter comes from irreducible randomness (such as multiple possible answers). In particular, we derive an information-theoretic metric that allows to reliably detect when only epistemic uncertainty is large, in which case the output of the model is unreliable. This condition can be computed based solely on the output of the model obtained simply by some special iterative prompting based on the previous responses. Such quantification, for instance, allows to detect hallucinations (cases when epistemic uncertainty is high) in both single- and multi-answer responses. This is in contrast to many standard uncertainty quantification strategies (such as thresholding the log-likelihood of a response) where hallucinations in the multi-answer case cannot be detected. We conduct a series of experiments which demonstrate the advantage of our formulation. Further, our investigations shed some light on how the probabilities assigned to a given output by an LLM can be amplified by iterative prompting, which might be of independent interest.

Breakthroughs in machine learning (ML) and advances in quantum computing (QC) drive the interdisciplinary field of quantum machine learning to new levels. However, due to the susceptibility of ML models to adversarial attacks, practical use raises safety-critical concerns. Existing Randomized Smoothing (RS) certification methods for classical machine learning models are computationally intensive. In this paper, we propose the combination of QC and the concept of discrete randomized smoothing to speed up the stochastic certification of ML models for discrete data. We show how to encode all the perturbations of the input binary data in superposition and use Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) to obtain a quadratic reduction in the number of calls to the model that are required compared to traditional randomized smoothing techniques. In addition, we propose a new binary threat model to allow for an extensive evaluation of our approach on images, graphs, and text.

We reveal and address the frequently overlooked yet important issue of disguised procedural unfairness, namely, the potentially inadvertent alterations on the behavior of neutral (i.e., not problematic) aspects of data generating process, and/or the lack of procedural assurance of the greatest benefit of the least advantaged individuals. Inspired by John Rawls's advocacy for pure procedural justice, we view automated decision-making as a microcosm of social institutions, and consider how the data generating process itself can satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness. We propose a framework that decouples the objectionable data generating components from the neutral ones by utilizing reference points and the associated value instantiation rule. Our findings highlight the necessity of preventing disguised procedural unfairness, drawing attention not only to the objectionable data generating components that we aim to mitigate, but also more importantly, to the neutral components that we intend to keep unaffected.

In this article, we introduce a new parameterized family of topological invariants, taking the form of candidate decompositions, for multi-parameter persistence modules. We prove that our candidate decompositions are controllable approximations: when restricting to modules that can be decomposed into interval summands, we establish theoretical results about the approximation error between our candidate decompositions and the true underlying module in terms of the standard interleaving and bottleneck distances. Moreover, even when the underlying module does not admit such a decomposition, our candidate decompositions are nonetheless stable invariants; small perturbations in the underlying module lead to small perturbations in the candidate decomposition. Then, we introduce MMA (Multipersistence Module Approximation): an algorithm for computing stable instances of such invariants, which is based on fibered barcodes and exact matchings, two constructions that stem from the theory of single-parameter persistence. By design, MMA can handle an arbitrary number of filtrations, and has bounded complexity and running time. Finally, we present empirical evidence validating the generalization capabilities and running time speed-ups of MMA on several data sets.

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are algorithmically indistinguishable, or "look the same" to predictive algorithms. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side information", and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Although LLMs have demonstrated improved performance by scaling parallel test-time compute, doing so relies on generating reasoning paths that are both diverse and accurate. For challenging problems, the forking tokens that trigger diverse yet correct reasoning modes are typically deep in the sampling tree. Consequently, common strategies to encourage diversity, such as temperature scaling, encounter a worsened trade-off between diversity and accuracy. Motivated by this challenge, we treat parallel reasoning as a set-of-next-token-prediction problem, and incorporate a set-based global loss into Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) using self-supervised bipartite matching between our global forking tokens and unique reasoning traces. We observe that, while naive fine-tuning with multiple reasoning traces collapses these unique reasoning modes, our proposed method, Set Supervised Fine-Tuning (SSFT), preserves these modes and produces emergent global forking tokens. Experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks show that our SSFT consistently outperforms SFT under both Pass@1 and Cons@k metrics.

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 are capable of generating highly fluent responses to a wide variety of user prompts. However, LLMs are known to hallucinate facts and make non-factual statements which can undermine trust in their output. Existing fact-checking approaches either require access to token-level output probability distribution (which may not be available for systems such as ChatGPT) or external databases that are interfaced via separate, often complex, modules. In this work, we propose "SelfCheckGPT", a simple sampling-based approach that can be used to fact-check black-box models in a zero-resource fashion, i.e. without an external database. SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if a LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another. We investigate this approach by using GPT-3 to generate passages about individuals from the WikiBio dataset, and manually annotate the factuality of the generated passages. We demonstrate that SelfCheckGPT can: i) detect non-factual and factual sentences; and ii) rank passages in terms of factuality. We compare our approach to several existing baselines and show that in sentence hallucination detection, our approach has AUC-PR scores comparable to grey-box methods, while SelfCheckGPT is best at passage factuality assessment.

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm shows promise for evaluating generative content but lacks reliability in reasoning-intensive scenarios, such as programming. Inspired by recent advances in reasoning models and shifts in scaling laws, we pioneer bringing test-time computation into LLM-as-a-Judge, proposing MCTS-Judge, a resource-efficient, System-2 thinking framework for code correctness evaluation. MCTS-Judge leverages Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to decompose problems into simpler, multi-perspective evaluations. Through a node-selection strategy that combines self-assessment based on historical actions in the current trajectory and the Upper Confidence Bound for Trees based on prior rollouts, MCTS-Judge balances global optimization and refinement of the current trajectory. We further designed a high-precision, unit-test-level reward mechanism to encourage the Large Language Model (LLM) to perform line-by-line analysis. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks and five LLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of MCTS-Judge, which improves the base model's accuracy from 41% to 80%, surpassing the o1-series models with 3x fewer tokens. Further evaluations validate the superiority of its reasoning trajectory in logic, analytics, thoroughness, and overall quality, while revealing the test-time scaling law of the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm.

In online algorithm selection (OAS), instances of an algorithmic problem class are presented to an agent one after another, and the agent has to quickly select a presumably best algorithm from a fixed set of candidate algorithms. For decision problems such as satisfiability (SAT), quality typically refers to the algorithm's runtime. As the latter is known to exhibit a heavy-tail distribution, an algorithm is normally stopped when exceeding a predefined upper time limit. As a consequence, machine learning methods used to optimize an algorithm selection strategy in a data-driven manner need to deal with right-censored samples, a problem that has received little attention in the literature so far. In this work, we revisit multi-armed bandit algorithms for OAS and discuss their capability of dealing with the problem. Moreover, we adapt them towards runtime-oriented losses, allowing for partially censored data while keeping a space- and time-complexity independent of the time horizon. In an extensive experimental evaluation on an adapted version of the ASlib benchmark, we demonstrate that theoretically well-founded methods based on Thompson sampling perform specifically strong and improve in comparison to existing methods.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks, including logical puzzle games that require deriving solutions satisfying all constraints. However, whether they can flexibly apply appropriate rules to varying conditions, particularly when faced with non-canonical game variants, remains an open question. Existing corpora focus on popular puzzles like 9x9 Sudoku, risking overfitting to canonical formats and memorization of solution patterns, which can mask deficiencies in understanding novel rules or adapting strategies to new variants. To address this, we introduce HardcoreLogic, a challenging benchmark of over 5,000 puzzles across 10 games, designed to test the robustness of LRMs on the "long-tail" of logical games. HardcoreLogic systematically transforms canonical puzzles through three dimensions: Increased Complexity (IC), Uncommon Elements (UE), and Unsolvable Puzzles (UP), reducing reliance on shortcut memorization. Evaluations on a diverse set of LRMs reveal significant performance drops, even for models achieving top scores on existing benchmarks, indicating heavy reliance on memorized stereotypes. While increased complexity is the dominant source of difficulty, models also struggle with subtle rule variations that do not necessarily increase puzzle difficulty. Our systematic error analysis on solvable and unsolvable puzzles further highlights gaps in genuine reasoning. Overall, HardcoreLogic exposes the limitations of current LRMs and establishes a benchmark for advancing high-level logical reasoning.

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

In this article, we propose a new counter-based implementation of John von Neumann's middle-square random number generator (RNG). Several rounds of squaring are applied to a counter to produce a random output. We discovered that four rounds are sufficient to provide satisfactory data. Two versions of the RNG are presented, a 4-round version with 32-bit output and a 5-round version with 64-bit output. Both pass stringent tests of randomness and may be the fastest counter-based generators.

Studying the responses of large language models (LLMs) to loopholes presents a two-fold opportunity. First, it affords us a lens through which to examine ambiguity and pragmatics in LLMs, since exploiting a loophole requires identifying ambiguity and performing sophisticated pragmatic reasoning. Second, loopholes pose an interesting and novel alignment problem where the model is presented with conflicting goals and can exploit ambiguities to its own advantage. To address these questions, we design scenarios where LLMs are given a goal and an ambiguous user instruction in conflict with the goal, with scenarios covering scalar implicature, structural ambiguities, and power dynamics. We then measure different models' abilities to exploit loopholes to satisfy their given goals as opposed to the goals of the user. We find that both closed-source and stronger open-source models can identify ambiguities and exploit their resulting loopholes, presenting a potential AI safety risk. Our analysis indicates that models which exploit loopholes explicitly identify and reason about both ambiguity and conflicting goals.

Large Language Models have demonstrated exceptional proficiency on coding tasks, but it is challenging to precisely evaluate their code reasoning ability. Existing benchmarks are insufficient as they are unrealistic and conflate semantic reasoning ability with performance on software engineering tasks. We introduce CRQBench, a benchmark of 100 C++ code reasoning questions and answers derived from contextualized code review comments. To curate CRQBench, we use an LLM assistant alongside human inspection, reducing manual effort. We conduct an evaluation of GPT-4 on CRQBench and find that it produces correct responses grounded in the given context for 65 of the 100 questions.

Software testing and verification are critical for ensuring the reliability and security of modern software systems. Traditionally, formal verification techniques, such as model checking and theorem proving, have provided rigorous frameworks for detecting bugs and vulnerabilities. However, these methods often face scalability challenges when applied to complex, real-world programs. Recently, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has introduced a new paradigm for software analysis, leveraging their ability to understand insecure coding practices. Although LLMs demonstrate promising capabilities in tasks such as bug prediction and invariant generation, they lack the formal guarantees of classical methods. This paper presents a comprehensive study of state-of-the-art software testing and verification, focusing on three key approaches: classical formal methods, LLM-based analysis, and emerging hybrid techniques, which combine their strengths. We explore each approach's strengths, limitations, and practical applications, highlighting the potential of hybrid systems to address the weaknesses of standalone methods. We analyze whether integrating formal rigor with LLM-driven insights can enhance the effectiveness and scalability of software verification, exploring their viability as a pathway toward more robust and adaptive testing frameworks.

Evaluating aligned large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests is crucial for safe, policy-compliant deployments. Existing evaluation efforts, however, face three limitations that we address with SORRY-Bench, our proposed benchmark. First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomies of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics. For example, among the ten existing datasets that we evaluated, tests for refusals of self-harm instructions are over 3x less represented than tests for fraudulent activities. SORRY-Bench improves on this by using a fine-grained taxonomy of 45 potentially unsafe topics, and 450 class-balanced unsafe instructions, compiled through human-in-the-loop methods. Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations. We supplement SORRY-Bench with 20 diverse linguistic augmentations to systematically examine these effects. Third, existing evaluations rely on large LLMs (e.g., GPT-4) for evaluation, which can be computationally expensive. We investigate design choices for creating a fast, accurate automated safety evaluator. By collecting 7K+ human annotations and conducting a meta-evaluation of diverse LLM-as-a-judge designs, we show that fine-tuned 7B LLMs can achieve accuracy comparable to GPT-4 scale LLMs, with lower computational cost. Putting these together, we evaluate over 40 proprietary and open-source LLMs on SORRY-Bench, analyzing their distinctive refusal behaviors. We hope our effort provides a building block for systematic evaluations of LLMs' safety refusal capabilities, in a balanced, granular, and efficient manner.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities. However, single-shot inference often yields unreliable results for complex reasoning tasks, leading researchers to explore multiple reasoning paths through methods such as perplexity and self-consistency. In this paper, we present the first theoretical error decomposition analysis of these techniques, breaking down their error into estimation error and model error. Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: perplexity methods suffer from substantial model error due to the absence of a proper consistency function, while self-consistency exhibits high estimation error due to a slow error convergence rate. To overcome these limitations, we propose Reasoning-Pruning Perplexity Consistency (RPC). This approach combines Perplexity Consistency, which seamlessly integrates LLM perplexity with self-consistency, and Reasoning Pruning, which eliminates low-probability reasoning paths to effectively prevent the degeneration of estimation error reduction. Theoretical analysis demonstrates that RPC not only accelerates the convergence rate of estimation error to an exponential level but also holds strong potential for further reducing model error. Extensive empirical evaluations on seven benchmark datasets confirm that RPC can significantly improve reasoning performance, sample efficiency, and confidence reliability.