CIRCE Divines LLM Task Complexity from Constraint Structure

We introduce MathConstraint, a hard, adaptive benchmark for evaluating the combinatorial reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We combine constraint satisfaction problems with rigorous solver-based verification and design an adaptive generator to create instances that remain challenging as the LLMs improve in their reasoning capabilities. Unlike existing benchmarks that quickly saturate on fixed datasets or use LLM-as-a-judge for checking solutions,MathConstraint uses parameterized problem types that enable scalable generation of arbitrarily difficult and automatically verifiable instances. We release MathConstraint-Easy ($266$ instances), on which frontier models achieve between $72.6\%$ (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) and $87.6\%$ (gpt-5.5) accuracy, and MathConstraint ($329$ instances) on which the same models drop to between $18.5\%$ (claude-4.6-sonnet) and $66.9\%$ (gpt-5.5) accuracy, demonstrating the resilience of our benchmark generator against rapid progress in LLM reasoning capabilities. We evaluate 12 frontier and open-weight models with and without access to a sandboxed Python environment that includes generic SAT/SMT solvers. Tool access roughly doubles frontier accuracy on MathConstraint (mean $+28$pp; up to $+52$pp for claude-4.6-sonnet). Further, halving the tool-call budget from $8$ to $4$ rounds erases up to $37$ points -- a sensitivity that most single-budget benchmarks miss. We release the generator, dataset, and evaluation harness as a robust environment for studying combinatorial reasoning and tool-use behavior under adversarially-tunable difficulty.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved great improvements in recent years. Nevertheless, it still remains unclear how good LLMs are for reasoning tasks, especially for long-chain ones. In this paper, we evaluate LLMs' performance on the simplest yet long-chain reasoning task, namely the Equivalence Class Problem (ECP), i.e., determining whether two variables are equal given a set of randomly generated equivalence relations. We consider both reasoning and non-reasoning representative LLMs over a large variety of problem instances, ranging over different numbers of variables, connectivity probabilities, prompts, and other factors. The experimental results show that non-reasoning LLMs fail ECP, while reasoning models are significantly better but still struggle to completely solve this problem. Interestingly, considering various connectivity probabilities with a fixed number of variables, we observe that, for non-reasoning models, the hardest problem instances coincide with the phase transition point of ln n/(n-1), suggesting the chaos of the problem; in contrast, for reasoning models, the hardest ones coincide with the biggest diameter, suggesting the reasoning difficulty of the problem.

LLM constraint reasoners are often evaluated near the random-SAT phase transition, confounding density and solver hardness. We test instance-level transfer while near-matching clause density. At aligned size bins, with near-matched density and matched maximum clause width, we compare proof-hard expander-Tseitin and proof-easy ladder-Tseitin formulas, pigeonhole anchors, and density-mismatched controls. Theory separates their resolution hardness; a solver-specific Glucose mean-conflict proxy differs by up to $51\times$, and five other solvers preserve the direction. Across three included models (243 instances each; a fourth is excluded for abstention), the near-matched-density accuracy gaps range from $-32$ to $+20$ points, with a pooled gap of $+1.7$ points ($p=0.74$) and a wrong-signed correctness-versus-conflict association ($r=+0.15$). A proof-preserving relabeling lowers accuracy in all five clusters for one model (mean $-93$ points) but not another, exposing model-surface sensitivity. In a preregistered extension, provider-reported completion-token spend does not consistently increase with the proxy after accounting for formula length and censoring. At 16k, the reasoning model spends more on proof-easy matched formulas and exhausts its budget on the solver-easiest UNSAT family; the 32k C1 gap is absent. These scoped dissociations concern verdict accuracy and observed token spend, not certificate solving, exact proof length, or allocation efficiency.