Pencil Puzzle Bench: A Benchmark for Multi-Step Verifiable Reasoning

Puzzles offer a natural testbed for Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning because they pose verifiable goals under partial information and require multi-step decisions to reach a solution. However, existing puzzle benchmarks typically focus on narrow environments with rigid mechanics and tightly constrained solution targets. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Active Probing Benchmark (APB), which generalizes puzzle-solving by casting concept identification as an interactive reasoning task that integrates specialized knowledge assessment into the puzzle setting. Specifically, APB evaluates whether models can acquire information via multi-turn active probing and inference to pinpoint 960 target concepts of specialized difficulty across eight diverse academic domains. Our evaluation reveals a counter-intuitive phenomenon: most open-source reasoning models significantly underperform their standard instruction counterparts. This finding suggests that in interactive settings, these models struggle to leverage procedural reasoning to reliably access and apply specialized domain knowledge. Beyond these empirical insights, APB provides a scalable pipeline for generating benchmarks that probe knowledge reasoning under interaction across diverse settings.

Large language models often appear strong on symbolic and algorithmic tasks, yet this apparent strength can hide brittle behaviour when problems become longer, harder, or slightly out of distribution. A major limitation of current reasoning benchmarks is that many primarily test whether a model can produce a valid answer, while paying less attention to whether the solution is minimal, robust, and stable under controlled difficulty scaling. We introduce RecurrReason, a difficulty-controlled benchmark of four recurrent logic puzzles (Tower of Hanoi, River Crossing, Block World, and Checkers Jumping) with BFS-optimal trajectories and a single interpretable difficulty parameter $N \in \{1,\dots,10\}$, totalling 10{,}817 unique puzzles and 285{,}933 moves. We benchmark two Transformer families, an encoder-decoder model (T5-style) and a decoder-only model (GPT-2-style), under consistent data splits and evaluation criteria, training on $N{=}1$ to $7$ and evaluating on both held-out in-distribution instances and harder out-of-distribution instances at $N{=}8$ to $10$. Fine-tuned pre-trained T5 achieves 97.27% validation and 81.00% OOD accuracy on Block World; all models score 0.00% on River Crossing under all conditions. Failure mode analysis reveals that architecture is a stronger determinant of success than scale. Pre-training transfers only to puzzles with locally structured transition functions. Our code and dataset will be open-sourced upon acceptance.

Evaluating the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models is increasingly challenging as models improve. Human curation of hard questions is highly expensive, especially in recent benchmarks using PhD-level domain knowledge to challenge the most capable models. Even then, there is always a concern about whether these questions test genuine reasoning or if similar problems have been seen during training. Here, we take inspiration from 16th-century mathematical duels to design The Token Games (TTG): an evaluation framework where models challenge each other by creating their own puzzles. We leverage the format of Programming Puzzles - given a function that returns a boolean, find inputs that make it return True - to flexibly represent problems and enable verifying solutions. Using results from pairwise duels, we then compute Elo ratings, allowing us to compare models relative to each other. We evaluate 10 frontier models on TTG, and closely match the ranking from existing benchmarks such as Humanity's Last Exam, spending less than $200 USD and without involving any human effort in creating puzzles. We also find that creating good puzzles is still a highly challenging task for current models. Overall, our work suggests new paradigms for evaluating reasoning that avoid saturation by design, and that allow testing models for other skills like creativity and task creation alongside problem solving.