Authors: Sumeet Ramesh Motwani, Daniel Nichols, Charles London, Peggy Li, Fabio Pizzati, Acer Blake, Hasan Hammoud, Tavish McDonald, Akshat Naik, Alesia Ivanova, Vignesh Baskaran, Ivan Laptev, Ruben Glatt, Tal Ben-Nun, Philip Torr, Natasha Jaques, Ameya Prabhu, Brian Bartoldson, Bhavya Kailkhura, Christian Schroeder de Witt
Organizations: University of Oxford · Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) · MBZUAI · KAUST · Hexo AI · University of Washington · University of Tübingen
As language models are increasingly deployed for complex autonomous tasks, their ability to reason accurately over longer horizons becomes critical. An essential component of this ability is planning and managing a long, complex chain-of-thought (CoT). We introduce LongCoT, a scalable benchmark of 2,500 expert-designed problems spanning chemistry, mathematics, computer science, chess, and logic to isolate and directly measure the long-horizon CoT reasoning capabilities of frontier models. Problems consist of a short input with a verifiable answer; solving them requires navigating a graph of interdependent steps that span tens to hundreds of thousands of reasoning tokens. Each local step is individually tractable for frontier models, so failures reflect long-horizon reasoning limitations. At release, the best models achieve <10% accuracy (GPT 5.2: 9.8%; Gemini 3 Pro: 6.1%) on LongCoT, revealing a substantial gap in current capabilities. Overall, LongCoT provides a rigorous measure of long-horizon reasoning, tracking the ability of frontier models to reason reliably over extended periods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Accuracy versus token usage on LongCoT. GPT 5.2 achieves 9.83% with an average of 62K output tokens per problem.
Figure 2: LongCoT problems demand long-horizon reasoning. Each of our five domains requires constructing and traversing a computational dependency graph in a long chain-of-thought. These graphs can be DAGs, search trees, cyclic graphs, constraint graphs, or execution traces. Frontier models struggle with LongCoT problems: even the best model (GPT 5.2) achieves only 9.83% accuracy.
Table 1: Comprehensive benchmark comparison. LongCoT uniquely combines short inputs ( < 6K tokens), long reasoning outputs (10K–100K+ tokens), controlled single-step difficulty, no tool dependencies, and verifiable answers across five diverse domains. Existing benchmarks either test short reasoning chains, require long inputs, depend on tools, or do not control for step-level difficulty.
Figure 3: LongCoT problem domains and reasoning structures. (Top) Distribution of subtopics across five domains. (Bottom) Example dependency graphs. Explicit templates present the graph directly in the prompt; Implicit templates require models to discover and navigate latent structure (game trees, constraint satisfaction, simulation). Actual problem graphs are significantly larger and more diverse than these schematic examples. This diversity across domains, graphs, and question types is essential for testing long-horizon reasoning: one problem might not isolate all relevant capabilities (managing context, backtracking, planning, execution), but the full benchmark does.
Figure 4: Main results on LongCoT-mini (left) and LongCoT (right). LongCoT is extremely challenging, with the best model (GPT 5.2) achieving only 9.83% and open-source models near zero. LongCoT-mini differentiates performance across a wider range of models.
Figure 5: LongCoT domain-specific results are mostly stable across all five domains for a given model. These findings comport with the design goals of LongCoT: rather than deep domain knowledge, LongCoT success demands the ability to reason over long horizons.
Figure 6: Accuracy falls as problem DAG sizes grow, inducing planning and execution difficulties before context windows saturate. Our problems increasingly differentiate model capabilities as horizon lengths grow. Under an independent error assumption (GPT 5.2 on Omni-Math), accuracy would be much higher than what we observe, highlighting issues with long-horizon reasoning.
Figure 7: RLM evals. GPT-5.2 RLM tested in reasoning-only (solid) and code simulation (dashed) settings. Without sub-agents calling tools, RLM fails to outperform GPT 5.2 alone. With code simulation, gains appear primarily on implicit domains where substantial parts of the dependency structure can be offloaded to programmatic search routines. See Appendix C for analysis.
Figure 8: Reasoning trace analysis. The distribution of reasoning spent across behaviors varies substantially by domain and model. Each cell represents 1% of the reasoning trace, read left-to-right, top-to-bottom (see Appendix C for more analysis).
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Template
Difficulty
GPT5.2
Gemini 3 Pro
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Deepseek V3.2
Grok 4.1 Fast
GLM
Kimi
BlocksWorld
Easy
60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Medium
16.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hard
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dungeon
Easy
53.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Medium
12.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hard
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
Appendix
Table 2: Model accuracy (%) on Logic tasks by template and difficulty
Template
Difficulty
GPT5.2
Gemini 3 Pro
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Deepseek V3.2
Grok 4.1 Fast
GLM
Kimi
HindleyMilner
Easy
38.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
Scheduling
Medium
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
TuringMachine
Medium
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MaxFlowMinCut
Hard
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Program Sim.
Easy
45.0
45.0
20.0
30.0
20.0
25.0
35.0
Medium
16.7
13.3
10.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
3.3
Appendix
Table 3: Model accuracy (%) on CS tasks by template and difficulty
Template
Difficulty
GPT5.2
Gemini 3 Pro
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Deepseek V3.2
Grok 4.1 Fast
GLM
Kimi
Molecules
Easy
46.0
54.0
38.0
30.0
48.0
20.0
22.0
Easy
34.0
42.0
28.0
10.0
32.0
6.0
10.0
Medium
14.0
16.0
4.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
2.0
Medium
10.0
28.0
12.0
2.0
8.0
0.0
2.0
Medium
8.0
16.0
6.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
Hard
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 4: Model accuracy (%) on Chemistry tasks by template and difficulty
Template
Difficulty
GPT 5.2
Gemini 3 Pro
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Deepseek V3.2
Grok 4.1 Fast
GLM
Kimi
Template 1
Hard
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Template 2
Medium
16.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Template 3
Easy
54.0
8.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Template 4
Hard
0.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Template 5
Hard
4.0
4.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
6.0
Template 6
Easy
18.0
40.0
18.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
12.0
Appendix
Table 5: Model accuracy (%) on Chess tasks by template and difficulty
Template
Difficulty
GPT5.2
Gemini 3 Pro
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Deepseek V3.2
Grok 4.1 Fast
GLM
Kimi
Linear
Easy
65.0
40.0
20.0
20.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
Medium
36.7
10.0
13.3
16.7
16.7
0.0
13.3
Hard
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
2.0
DAG
Easy
55.0
25.0
5.0
25.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Medium
20.0
20.0
3.3
10.0
16.7
0.0
13.3
Hard
4.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix
Table 6: Model accuracy (%) on Math tasks by DAG template and difficulty
Figure 9: LongCoT-mini domain-specific results provide more signal on model performance. These findings comport with the design goals of LongCoT: rather than deep domain knowledge, LongCoT success demands the ability to reason over long horizons.
Figure 10: GPT-5.2 accuracy and token usage on independent versus composed LongCoT-Math questions. Independent questions are presented in a single prompt with no inter-node dependencies and scored on the same leaf nodes. Accuracy drops sharply when questions are composed while token usage remains comparable, confirming that compositional dependency, not just output length, drives difficulty.
Figure 11: Reasoning trace structure for DeepSeek V3.2 on LongCoT-mini Chemistry Problems. Each trace is segmented into a 10×10 grid (read left-to-right, top-to-bottom ), classified into Setup, Planning, Solving, Verification, Stuck, or Backtracking. Correct traces (top) allocate more budget to setup, while incorrect traces (bottom) show visibly more backtracking (orange) and stuck (red) segments.
While long chain-of-thought (CoT) distillation significantly improves the reasoning abilities of language models, its underlying mechanism remains poorly understood. Current pipelines generally rely on rejection sampling to gather reasoning traces across diverse prompts, assuming that factual correctness and broad problem coverage are indispensable. Surprisingly, we find that training exclusively on flawed reasoning trajectories or a restricted prompt set yields nearly comparable performance. Driven by this counterintuitive finding, we propose the Behavioral Hypothesis: the essence of Long-CoT distillation is behavioral alignment with structured reasoning patterns, rather than factual knowledge memorization. We then validate this by demonstrating substantial reasoning gains even when models are fine-tuned exclusively on previously mastered problems-effectively isolating behavioral alignment from novel knowledge injection. Having established that reasoning patterns are the true bottleneck, we investigate how to learn them across varying levels of complexity optimally. We reveal a critical interplay: while the recent probability-based loss excels at learning simple patterns, the standard cross-entropy loss is essential for scaling to complex CoTs. We believe these insights demystify CoT distillation and provide a principled foundation for the future development of reasoning models. Code is available on https://github.com/yuyongcan/Long-CoT-Distillation.
Yongcan Yu, Jian Liang, Lingxiao He +5
NLPR & MAIS, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Meituan +1
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly improved the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, conventional CoT often relies on unstructured, flat reasoning chains that suffer from redundancy and suboptimal performance. In this work, we introduce Hierarchical Chain-of-Thought (Hi-CoT), a structured reasoning paradigm specifically designed to address the challenges of complex, multi-step reasoning. Hi-CoT decomposes the reasoning process into hierarchical substeps by alternating between instructional planning and step-by-step execution. This decomposition enables LLMs to better manage long reasoning horizons and maintain logical coherence. Extensive evaluations across diverse LLMs and mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that Hi-CoT consistently improves average accuracy by 6.2% (up to 61.4% on certain models and tasks) while reducing reasoning trace length by 13.9% compared to CoT. We further show that accuracy and efficiency are maximized when models strictly adhere to the hierarchical structure. Our code is available at https://github.com/XingshuaiHuang/Hi-CoT.
Many efforts to ensure frontier AI models are safe rely on monitoring their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. If models become able to perform sufficiently complex reasoning internally, without explicit thinking tokens, this would undermine such oversight. We measure how well frontier models reason without CoT across a suite of over 30,000 questions spanning 43 benchmarks in domains including math, coding, puzzles, causality, theory-of-mind, and strategic reasoning. To compare models against humans, we estimate the 50%-task-completion time horizon (TH): the human time required for tasks a model completes with 50% success rate. We complement this with a 50% reasoning token horizon: the minimum number of o3-mini reasoning tokens needed for tasks a model solves with 50% success rate. We find that the no-CoT 50% TH of frontier models has been doubling roughly every year over the past six years, with GPT-5.5's TH reaching over 3 minutes and reasoning token horizon exceeding 1,500 tokens. Our median estimates predict that frontier no-CoT THs could exceed 7 minutes by 2028, and 25 minutes by 2030, though these projections carry substantial uncertainty. We recommend frontier developers track this explicitly.
Dewi Gould, Francis Rhys Ward, Anders Cairns Woodruff +18
Redwood Research · Astra Fellows Program · Aether Research +10