Robust Reasoning Benchmark

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet their performance drops when problems are modified with simple changes like different names or numbers. Code execution methods, which let models generate and run Python code instead of reasoning in natural language, have been proposed as a solution, but their effect on reasoning robustness (the ability to maintain accuracy across problem variations) has not been systematically tested. This study evaluates three approaches on 1,000 problems from the GSM-Symbolic dataset: pure reasoning using chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, single-shot code execution using Program-Aided Language models (PAL), and iterative code execution using Step-by-Step Coding (SBSC). All three were run on paired original and modified problems using Claude Haiku 4.5. CoT was the most robust method, with an accuracy drop of 1.3 percentage points and 1.8% of problems breaking under perturbation. PAL was the least robust at 1.7 percentage points and 3.1% broke, with SBSC falling in between. Although these differences were not statistically significant ($p = .096$), the directional trend was consistent across all measures, suggesting that code execution, whether single-shot or iterative, does not improve reasoning robustness on grade-school-level problem variations.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) now reach near-ceiling accuracy on standard mathematical-reasoning benchmarks and gold-medal-level performance at the International Mathematical Olympiad. As these benchmarks saturate and their items leak into training data, a high score no longer shows whether a model reasons robustly or which component of its reasoning fails. To evaluate reasoning while keeping results informative and failures diagnosable, we propose GAP (Generalisation-and-Perturbation), a methodology that automatically generates mathematically equivalent variants of existing mathematics problems at scale using two disjoint, interpretable transformations: (1) surface renames, probing the binding between identifiers and latent variable roles, and (2) kernel rewrites, probing whether a high-level proof plan survives a change of mathematical setting. Compared with existing benchmarks, GAP has two key benefits: (1) novel, likely unseen variants mitigate data leakage, and (2) performance across transformation families enables failure diagnosis, each transformation testing a hypothesis about the cause of failure. We instantiate GAP on all 1,051 William Lowell Putnam Competition problems from 1938 to 2024, adding 5,255 unseen variants to form PutnamGAP, a 6,306-item competition-level mathematics corpus and the first public machine-readable dataset from the full Putnam archive. Using PutnamGAP, we evaluated 18 commercial and open-source models spanning sizes and providers. Accuracy drops across all models and variant families, most severely under kernel rewrites. This gap does not close with model strength, suggesting that even the strongest models' dominant weakness is transferring a proof plan to a changed mathematical setting, rather than handling surface changes. Further analysis provides finer failure diagnoses and potentially useful insights for improving LLM reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive scores on standard benchmarks yet routinely fail questions that any human would answer correctly in seconds. We introduce BrainBench, a benchmark of 100 brainteaser questions spanning 20 carefully designed categories, each targeting a specific commonsense reasoning failure mode in LLMs. Categories range from implicit physical constraints ("Should I walk or drive my rental car to the return lot?") to semantic scope tricks and default assumption hijacks. We evaluate eight frontier models -- four from the Claude family and four from the GPT family -- using a zero-shot protocol with 10 independent runs per question. The best model, Claude Opus 4.6 with extended thinking, achieves only 80.3% accuracy; the worst, GPT-4o, scores 39.7%. Even top-performing models exhibit a 6-16 percentage-point gap between accuracy and consistency, revealing stochastic reasoning. Cross-lingual evaluation in Chinese shows most models degrade by 2-8 percentage points, confirming that these failures reflect reasoning deficits rather than language-specific artifacts. BrainBench provides a fine-grained diagnostic tool for identifying where and why LLMs substitute surface heuristics for genuine commonsense reasoning.