AlgBench: To What Extent Do Large Reasoning Models Understand Algorithms? (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for algorithmic reasoning fail to answer a critical question: do LRMs master algorithmic thinking? Empirical evaluations on leading LRM models reveal substantial performance heterogeneity, while models perform well on non-optimized tasks, accuracy drops sharply to around 49% on globally optimized algorithms. |
| Approach: | They propose an algorithm-centric benchmark that evaluates large reasoning models under an algorithmic paradigm. |
| Outcome: | Empirical evaluations on leading LRMs reveal substantial performance heterogeneity . models perform well on non-optimized tasks, accuracy drops sharply to around 49% . |
Similar Papers
How Reliable are Confidence Estimators for Large Reasoning Models? A Systematic Benchmark on High-Stakes Domains (2026.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Reza Khanmohammadi, Erfan Miahi, Simerjot Kaur, Charese Smiley, Ivan Brugere, Kundan S Thind, Mohammad M. Ghassemi
| Challenge: | Large Reasoning Models often struggle with confidence calibration, authors say . authors: accurate confidence scores are essential to build trustworthy systems . |
| Approach: | They propose a Reasoning Model Confidence estimation benchmark to assess LRM confidence . the benchmark is constructed from 347,496 reasoning traces from six popular LRMs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark compares ten different representation-based methods on a wide range of architectures. |
Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in many intellectual activities. |
| Approach: | They propose to improve LLMs' ability to elicit reasoning by providing exemplars or prompts to model reasoning. |
| Outcome: | This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the state of knowledge on reasoning in large language models. |
LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
| Challenge: | Existing work investigating the logical reasoning ability of large language models has focused only on a couple of inference rules of propositional and first-order logics. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a natural language question-answering dataset to evaluate the logical reasoning ability of large language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs poorly on a range of natural language questions using chain-of-thought prompting. |
Safety in Large Reasoning Models: A Survey (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Cheng Wang, Yue Liu, Baolong Bi, Duzhen Zhang, Zhong-Zhi Li, Yingwei Ma, Yufei He, Shengju Yu, Xinfeng Li, Junfeng Fang, Jiaheng Zhang, Bryan Hooi
| Challenge: | Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have a high level of advanced reasoning capabilities, but they are vulnerable and vulnerable. |
| Approach: | This paper presents the first comprehensive survey of Large Reasoning Models . it explores the new safety risks, attacks, and defense strategies specific to LRMs based on reasoning . |
| Outcome: | The proposed study examines the safety and security risks of large reasoning models. |
Search-o1: Agentic Search-Enhanced Large Reasoning Models (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Xiaoxi Li, Guanting Dong, Jiajie Jin, Yuyao Zhang, Yujia Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Peitian Zhang, Zhicheng Dou
| Challenge: | Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive long stepwise reasoning capabilities through large-scale reinforcement learning. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that enhances large reasoning models with an agentic retrieval-augmented generation mechanism and a Reason-in-Documents module for refining retrieved documents. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework enhances LRMs with an agentic retrieval-augmented generation mechanism and Reason-in-Documents module for refining retrieved documents. |
Beyond ’Aha!’: Toward Systematic Meta-Abilities Alignment in Large Reasoning Models (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Prior work has shown that outcome-based reinforcement learning (RL) can incidentally elicit advanced reasoning behaviors such as self-correction, backtracking, and verification. |
| Approach: | They explicitly align large reasoning models with three meta-abilities: deduction, induction, and abduction, using automatically generated, self-verifiable tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model aligns models with deduction, induction, and abduction meta-abilities using automatically generated, self-verifiable tasks. |
FinanceReasoning: Benchmarking Financial Numerical Reasoning More Credible, Comprehensive and Challenging (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Zichen Tang, Haihong E, Ziyan Ma, Haoyang He, Jiacheng Liu, Zhongjun Yang, Zihua Rong, Rongjin Li, Kun Ji, Qing Huang, Xinyang Hu, Yang Liu, Qianhe Zheng
| Challenge: | Compared to existing benchmarks, FinanceReasoning provides three key advancements: (1) credibility; (2) comprehensiveness; (3) numerical precision; (4) complexity; (5) complexity; and (6) complexity. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of large reasoning models (LRMs) in financial numerical reasoning problems. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark exceeds existing benchmarks in 67.8% of financial concepts and formulas and is credible, comprehensive, and challenging. |
Towards a Mechanistic Understanding of Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Training, Inference, and Failures (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yi Hu, Jiaqi Gu, Ruxin Wang, Zijun Yao, Hao Peng, Xiaobao Wu, Jianhui Chen, Muhan Zhang, Liangming Pan
| Challenge: | Recent research has shown that reinforcement learning can elicit intriguing emergent reasoning behaviors. |
| Approach: | They propose a comprehensive survey of the mechanistic understanding of large reasoning models . they organize findings into three core dimensions: 1) training dynamics, 2) reasoning mechanisms, and 3) unintended behaviors. |
| Outcome: | This paper synthesizes the mechanistic understanding of large reasoning models into three dimensions . authors outline a roadmap for future studies including improved interpretability and methodologies . |
Understanding LLM Reasoning for Abstractive Summarization (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Explicit reasoning strategies improve reference-based quality, but weaken factual grounding, whereas implicit reasoning in LRMs shows the opposite tendency. |
| Approach: | They adapt general reasoning strategies to the summarization setting and conduct a large-scale comparative study of 8 reasoning strategies and 3 Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) they find a trade-off between summary quality and factual faithfulness. |
| Outcome: | The proposed reasoning strategies and 3 Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are compared with 8 reasoning strategies across 8 datasets. |
Lexical Recall or Logical Reasoning: Probing the Limits of Reasoning Abilities in Large Language Models (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on LLMs assesses logic abilities independently from lexical memory. |
| Approach: | They propose to assess LLMs' logic abilities independently from lexical memory . they use two sets of grid puzzles in 42 different sizes and 12 difficulty levels . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show that LLMs are limited to a few steps of reasoning . the results show that the applied obfuscation strategies help mitigate effects of logic puzzles being part of training data. |