We introduce Pencil Puzzle Bench, a framework for evaluating large language model reasoning through pencil puzzles, a family of constraint-satisfaction problems closely related to NP-complete problems, with deterministic, step-level verification. From a database of 62,231 puzzles across 94 varieties with verified unique solutions, we select a benchmark of 300 puzzles spanning 20 varieties and evaluate 51 models from 11 providers in two modes: direct ask (single-shot) and agentic (multi-turn with iterative verification). A key differentiator of our benchmark is that every intermediate board state can be checked against variety-specific constraints, localizing errors to the exact rule violated, providing the infrastructure for dense, per-move reward signals for process supervision and reinforcement learning. Our evaluation reveals two distinct axes of capability: (1) reasoning effort scaling, where GPT-5.2 improves 81x from no reasoning to maximum effort; and (2) agentic iteration, where Claude Opus 4.6 rises from 0.3% to 30.0% through iterative checking, while GPT-5.2@xhigh improves from 20.2% to 56.0%. Agentic attempts span a median of 29 turns over 17 minutes, with the longest exceeding 1,221 turns and 14.3 hours - a demanding test of long-context utilization, not just reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Model success rates by strategy (left), with a 3 × 3 gallery of partial and complete solves across diverse attempts (right).
Figure 2: A norinori puzzle showing the solving process. Red highlights in (b) indicate cells where variety-specific constraints are violated; the verifier reports which rule is broken (e.g., “Shaded cell has no adjacent shaded cell”), enabling targeted feedback in agentic mode.
Full Dataset
Golden 300
Golden 30
Golden 60
Puzzles
62,231
300
30
60
Varieties
94
20
4
20
Unique creators
814
118
21
–
Median moves
78
54
89
–
Median area
100
100
100
–
SAT-verified
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table 1: Dataset summary statistics
Variety
Best Model
Solve Rate
norinori
gpt-5.2@xhigh
100.0%
shikaku
gpt-5.2@xhigh
86.7%
lits
gpt-5.2@xhigh
73.3%
hitori
claude-opus-4-6@thinking
66.7%
lightup
claude-opus-4-6@thinking
66.7%
mashu
gpt-5.2@xhigh
66.7%
Table 2: Puzzle varieties by difficulty (best single-model solve rate across all strategies)
Model
Direct Ask
Agentic
gpt-5.2@xhigh
27.0%
56.0%
claude-opus-4-6-1m
0.0%
36.7%
gpt-5.2@high
20.7%
36.7%
claude-opus-4-6@thinking
27.3%
33.3%
gemini-3.1-pro
20.0%
33.3%
claude-opus-4-6
0.3%
30.0%
Table 3: Top 15 models by best success rate. Direct ask on 300 puzzles; agentic on 30-puzzle baseline for most models, 60-puzzle expanded set for top 3.
Model
Direct
Agentic
Δ pp
Cost/Attempt
gpt-5.2@xhigh
27.0%
56.0%
+29.0
$9.74
claude-opus-4-6-1m
0.0%
36.7%
+36.7
$14.11
gpt-5.2@high
20.7%
36.7%
+16.0
$7.30
claude-opus-4-6@thinking
27.3%
33.3%
+6.0
$6.24
gemini-3.1-pro
20.0%
33.3%
+13.3
$14.36
claude-opus-4-6
0.3%
30.0%
+29.7
$10.89
Table 4: Top 10 models by agentic success rate, with uplift ( Δ pp = agentic − direct) and cost per attempt.
Model
Direct
Agentic
Uplift
gpt-5.2
0.33%
0.00%
1 ×
gpt-5.2@low
2.3%
10.0%
7 ×
gpt-5.2@medium
9.3%
23.3%
28 ×
gpt-5.2@high
20.7%
36.7%
62 ×
gpt-5.2@xhigh
27.0%
56.0%
81 ×
Table 5: GPT-5.2 performance by reasoning effort level. Direct ask on 300 puzzles; agentic on 30-puzzle baseline.
Figure 3: GPT-5.2 outcome breakdown by reasoning effort level (direct ask, 300 puzzles). Each bar sums to 100%. Correct answers (blue) improve 81 × from none to xhigh, but at xhigh, 35% of requests fail before returning a response (red), revealing a sharp reliability/capability tradeoff.
Figure 4: Model success rates over time with frontier model release dates annotated. The progression shows both generational improvement within model families and the gap between frontier and non-frontier models.
Figure 5: Cost per success vs. success rate across models. The Pareto frontier (lower-right) shows the cost-efficiency tradeoff: Grok 4.1 Fast achieves the lowest cost per success ($0.01) while GPT-5.2@xhigh achieves the highest success rate (56.0%).
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Direct Ask (300 puzzles)
Agentic (30/60 puzzles)
Model
Succ
Fail
Err
Rate
$/Att
Succ
Fail
Err
Rate
$/Att
gpt-5.2@xhigh
81
87
132
27.0%
$3.76
47
8
29
56.0%
$9.74
claude-opus-4-6-1m
0
300
0
0.0%
$0.08
11
19
0
36.7%
$14.11
gpt-5.2@high
62
235
3
20.7%
$1.07
11
18
1
36.7%
$7.30
claude-opus-4-6@thinking
82
207
11
27.3%
$3.18
28
23
33
33.3%
$6.24
gemini-3.1-pro
60
240
0
20.0%
$0.41
28
47
9
33.3%
$14.36
Appendix
Table 6: Full results by model and strategy. Succ = correct solves, Fail = wrong answers, Err = infrastructure failures (timeouts, API errors), $/Att = cost per attempt. Strategies are evaluated on different puzzle sets and rates are not comparable across columns.
Figure 6: All 20 varieties in the benchmark, shown mid-solve with constraint violations highlighted in red.
Figure 7: Full model success rates over time with frontier model release dates annotated, including all evaluated models. Models released before late 2024 show 0% or near-0% solve rates, with capability emerging only in late 2025.