Evaluating Exact Output and Checkpoint-State Prediction in Real Programs

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that test-time scaling can substantially improve model performance on complex tasks, particularly in the coding domain. Under this paradigm, models use a larger token budget during inference to generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing a final answer. However, current evaluations primarily rely on competitive programming benchmarks, which may not capture the full range of reasoning abilities. In this work, we perform a systematic study of frontier reasoning models to understand their performance on real-world coding benchmarks. To gain more insights into the performance of such models, we devise a programmatic way to {\em automatically generate} coding tasks of arbitrary difficulty and structure from existing benchmarks. Using this framework, our analysis reveals that the structure of a reasoning trace, not just its contents, is a strong predictor of correctness. Motivated by this, we propose structured thought-trees as means to represent reasoning traces. To illustrate their use, we train a lightweight classifier on features extracted from thought-trees to predict trace correctness, and demonstrate that flagging and retrying structurally anomalous traces based on the extracted features yields consistent gains at lower complexity levels.

Large language models receive limited explicit training in reasoning about runtime program states. We study whether training models to reason about runtime program states improves downstream software-engineering capabilities. We introduce two complementary program-state reasoning tasks. Buggy input-output reasoning requires a model to generate a concrete input that exposes a behavioral difference between a buggy program and a hidden correct implementation and to predict the resulting execution behavior. Precondition-postcondition reasoning requires an agent to symbolically characterize a bug-triggering precondition, predict the expected postcondition, explain their causal connection, and instantiate this reasoning as an executable regression test. By incorporating these two tasks into a staged post-training pipeline, we develop Comet-9B, a 9B language model based on Qwen3.5-9B Base. We evaluate the resulting checkpoints on repository-level patch generation, regression-test generation, and security PoC generation. Adding both program-state reasoning tasks to supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on issue resolution improves success rates by 7.25 percentage points on SWE-bench Pro and 9.70 points on SWT-Bench Verified. Sequential reinforcement learning on the two tasks yields further gains of 7.25, 26.79, and 4.67 percentage points on SWE-bench Pro, SWT-Bench Verified, and CyberGym, respectively. Despite having only 9B parameters, Comet-9B achieves a score comparable to the reported GPT-5.2 result on SWE-bench Pro and matches the reported success rate of a GPT-4o-based agent on SWT-Bench Verified.

Language-model benchmarks collapse two distinct measurement questions into a single accuracy score: whether a response reached an evaluable state, and whether its answer was judged correct. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness. Across 2,550 outputs from five fixed Qwen and DeepSeek configurations on MATH and ARC-Challenge, matched 2,048-token limits produce sharply different execution mixtures: 49 of 450 Qwen MATH outputs terminate without a final answer, compared with 5 of 300 DeepSeek MATH outputs and none of the 750 ARC outputs. Among the same 300 DeepSeek MATH question-model pairs, no missing-final length termination is observed at 8,192 tokens. A coverage-audited targeted verification study further shows that candidate-selection and aggregation policies can substantially alter comparative accuracy estimates. These results demonstrate that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy. Evaluations of test-time methods should therefore report pre-intervention execution states, verification coverage, and scorer provenance alongside accuracy.