BLAST: Benchmarking LLMs with ASP-based Structured Testing

Recent large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive reasoning milestones but continue to struggle with high computational costs, logical inconsistencies, and sharp performance degradation on high-complexity problems. While neuro-symbolic methods attempt to mitigate these issues by coupling LLMs with symbolic reasoners, existing approaches typically rely on monotonic logics (e.g., SMT) that cannot represent defeasible reasoning -- essential components of human cognition. We present "LLM+ASP," a framework that translates natural language into Answer Set Programming (ASP), a nonmonotonic formalism based on stable model semantics. Unlike prior "LLM+ASP" approaches that require manually authored knowledge modules, domain-specific prompts, or evaluation restricted to single problem classes, our framework operates without any per-task engineering and applies uniformly across diverse reasoning tasks. Our system utilizes an automated self-correction loop where structured feedback from the ASP solver enables iterative refinement. Evaluating across six diverse benchmarks, we demonstrate that: (1) stable model semantics allow LLMs to naturally express default rules and exceptions, outperforming SMT-based alternatives by significant margins on nonmonotonic tasks; (2) iterative self-correction is the primary driver of performance, effectively replacing the need for handcrafted domain knowledge; (3) compact in-context reference guides substantially outperform verbose documentation, revealing a "context rot" phenomenon where excessive context hinders constraint adherence.

Writing Answer Set Programming (ASP) theories from scratch is a difficult and time-consuming task. We take a neurosymbolic approach to study whether a model can distill complete and correct theories, given a fixed agent harness with the solver in the loop. The protocol is dataset-agnostic: with a single prompt and an empty file as the starting point the model is given a 1-hour time limit to derive a complete theory. We chose VQA as the application domain, three benchmarks (CLEVR, GQA, CLEVRER), as these are publicly available and non-trivial. In order to study the model scale required for solving this task we nine different models: four frontier (Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, DeepSeek V4 Pro), two mid-tier (DeepSeek V4 Flash, gpt-oss-120b), and three open-weights (qwen3.6-27b, gpt-oss-20b, qwen3.5-9b). Three of four frontier models reach 100% on CLEVR and 92.8%-98.8% on GQA; on CLEVRER, Sonnet, Opus, DeepSeek V4 Pro score 92.7%-95.3%. GPT-5 reaches 98.7% on CLEVR but drops to 41.8% on GQA and to 86.7% on CLEVRER. Adding handwritten reference theories from other datasets moves the other three frontier models by at most +/-3.4 pp but reduces GPT-5's accuracy by 3-19 pp. We release the code, prompts, and theories distilled.

This paper introduces Code Bench, a benchmark capable of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) concise code generation abilities in 60 programming languages. Based on code golf, a recreational programming competition focused on minimal character or byte solutions, the benchmark provides a distinctive measure of LLMs ability to produce efficient, concise code. Unlike existing benchmarks limited by fixed problem sets and language coverage, CodeGolf Bench leverages the code.golf platform to provide new problems and live human performance baselines. Evaluation of nine LLMs on Python and C++ tasks demonstrates that reasoning models significantly outperform non-reasoning models, achieving best average percentile of 70.97%. This performance gap is particularly pronounced in C++, highlighting reasoning's importance for languages with strict syntax requirements. Non-reasoning models struggle more with efficiency optimization across both languages, with best percentiles significantly lower than reasoning counterparts. CodeGolf Bench offers a dynamic framework for evaluating LLM code generation capabilities against evolving human performance on code golf.