Constructing Evaluation Datasets for Procedural Reasoning: Balancing Naturalness, Grounding, and Multi-Hop Coverage

Procedural generators produce useful verifiable reasoning problems at scale, but have received less attention as data for completion-supervised fine-tuning. We introduce Reasoning Core, a collection of 50 generators spanning mathematics, logic, planning, state tracking, formal languages, structured data, games, causality, and code, with semantic scorers, difficulty controls, and task evaluators. Under a matched completion-supervised protocol, we compare Reasoning Core with Procedural Warmup, Reasoning Gym, and SynLogic across four base-model settings and multiple training durations. In the primary 3B comparison, Reasoning Core achieves the highest mean scores on DROP, LogiQA, and ARC-Challenge, exceeding both the baseline without procedural data and all three alternative procedural collections. Task-level analyses show that semantic validity alone does not ensure training utility, highlighting compact targets and calibrated difficulty as important design factors. We ran audits combining model-assisted review, human adjudication, and regression testing. Applied throughout Reasoning Core development and to the other collections, they reveal subtle mismatches among generation, rendering, targets, and scoring, a reminder that procedural generation alone does not guarantee correctness. The library, generated datasets, and audit material are publicly available.

Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding. Furthermore, the rapid proliferation of LLMs has created the implicit assumption that more sophisticated prompting techniques yield better performance. Several studies claim such gains, but report them under differing models, prompt wordings and answer-extraction rules, so the gains cannot be attributed to the technique alone. We address this gap with ReasonLab, an evaluation framework in which the prompting technique is a first-class experimental variable alongside the model and the dataset, and which retains every generation for inspection. Using ReasonLab we conduct a controlled study of 8 prompting techniques across 10 MCQA datasets, 27 model configurations and 480,927 evaluations at temperature 0. We find that the prompting technique is a minor determinant of accuracy: on configurations without a reasoning budget the reasoning triggers improve on direct prompting by only 3.92 to 4.69 pp and are indistinguishable from one another, and on configurations with reasoning enabled no technique differs by more than 0.51 pp. Self-Generate is the only technique with a consistent effect, a reduction of 2.95 pp. We further investigate three phenomena: (1) the comparison of models on a common set of datasets, where model size does not predict accuracy, (2) the trade-offs across thinking budgets, where enabling reasoning is worth up to 12.74 pp whereas an eightfold budget increase adds only 0.48 to 2.10 pp, and (3) the variation in dataset difficulty, with 60% of benchmarks below 70% accuracy and a 43.9 pp spread from easiest to hardest. These results suggest that, for MCQA, the prompting technique is a minor lever compared with enabling model reasoning, and that substantial headroom remains.

Language models are increasingly taught from synthetic question--answer (QA) supervision: a model generates questions about a document, answers them from the same text, and the resulting pairs are used to fine-tune, distill, or compress knowledge into another model. We show that this generation step is not neutral preprocessing. It is an implicit policy that both selects which evidence becomes training signal and decides how that evidence is answered, and it is fragile at both stages. When choosing what to ask, generators do not scan a document uniformly. Coverage saturates early and concentrates on salient spans, diverse prompts converge on the same regions, and what looks question-worthy is driven by local presentation. As a result, salient artifacts such as poorly cleaned markup can hijack question generation across model families and scales. When answering, the model that produces the supervision tends to obey instruction-like passages embedded in the text. This compliance depends on the intent and surface form of the passage rather than its strictness, and is worst under task conflict, where larger models comply more often. These failure modes arise from choices made during QA generation, so they can be reduced without changing the training loop. Tying each question to a fixed target reduces biased selection, and filtering instruction-like spans before answering lowers mean injection compliance from $88\%$ to $13\%$ in our evaluation while retaining nearly all clean text.