Evaluating Relational Reasoning in LLMs with REL

Introducing Relay-Bench, an unsaturated, holistic, text-only benchmark that measures LLMs' ability to complete an assortment of tasks from distinct domains in a single prompt. The leading model, GPT-5.5 (xHigh), scores 43.3%. The test set entirely consists of composite problems: groups of single-domain subproblems that are strung together into challenges that require reasoning across multiple domains in combination. Many of these problems then have layers of complexity added through prompt encoding and deliberate context bloat. Domains tested include visual reasoning, coding, math, information extraction (with a focus on web search), problem-solving, general knowledge, and data analysis. No restrictions are imposed outside of the model harness, and models are explicitly encouraged to leverage code-execution, web searches, and all available tools. All problems are composed of two to thirteen subproblems and do not require multi-modal input or output.

Reasoning about relational structures remains a significant challenge for neural models, particularly when they must systematically apply learned knowledge to problem instances that are harder than those seen in training. Progress is hampered by the difficulty of evaluating such generalization, since a priori, it is rarely clear what makes an instance hard. We study how this issue can be addressed by using large language models (LLMs) to automate benchmark generation, learning to produce increasingly challenging instances in an end-to-end manner. Concretely, given a world parametrized by Datalog rules, and an Edge Transformer as the reasoning evaluator, we use LLM-driven evolutionary search (based on FunSearch) and autonomous agentic search to discover sampling functions that yield hard problem instances. We also show that the Edge Transformer can be improved using this data such that it generalizes well to further data perturbations. Finally, we show that the same machinery can be applied to novel worlds proposed by LLMs, opening the door to autonomous research on neural relational reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as possessing strong reasoning capabilities, supported by high performance on mathematical, logical, and planning benchmarks. However, most existing evaluations rely on aggregate accuracy over fixed datasets, obscuring how reasoning behavior evolves as task complexity increases. In this work, we introduce a controlled benchmarking framework to systematically evaluate the robustness of reasoning in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) under progressively increasing problem complexity. We construct a suite of nine classical reasoning tasks: Boolean Satisfiability, Cryptarithmetic, Graph Coloring, River Crossing, Tower of Hanoi, Water Jug, Checker Jumping, Sudoku, and Rubik's Cube, each parameterized to precisely control complexity while preserving underlying semantics. Using deterministic validators, we evaluate multiple open and proprietary LRMs across low, intermediate, and high complexity regimes, ensuring that only fully valid solutions are accepted. Our results reveal a consistent phase transition like behavior: models achieve high accuracy at low complexity but degrade sharply beyond task specific complexity thresholds. We formalize this phenomenon as reasoning collapse. Across tasks, we observe substantial accuracy declines, often exceeding 50%, accompanied by inconsistent reasoning traces, constraint violations, loss of state tracking, and confidently incorrect outputs. Increased reasoning length does not reliably improve correctness, and gains in one problem family do not generalize to others. These findings highlight the need for evaluation methodologies that move beyond static benchmarks and explicitly measure reasoning robustness under controlled complexity.