Benchmarking Large Language Models

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for medical applications remains challenging due to benchmark saturation, limited data accessibility, and insufficient coverage of relevant tasks. Existing suites have either saturated, heavily depend on restricted datasets, or lack comprehensive model coverage. We introduce Medmarks, a fully open-source evaluation suite with 30 benchmarks spanning question answering, information extraction, medical calculations, and open-ended clinical reasoning. We perform a systematic evaluation of 61 models across 71 configurations using verifiable metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge. Our results show that frontier reasoning models (Gemini 3 Pro Preview, GPT-5.1, & GPT-5.2) achieve the highest performance across both benchmarks, most frontier proprietary models are significantly more token efficient than open-weight alternatives, medically fine-tuned models outperform their generalist counterparts, and that models are susceptible to answer-order bias (particularly smaller models and Grok 4). A subset of our evals (Medmarks-T) can be directly used as reinforcement learning environments to post-train LLMs for medical reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/MedARC-AI/Medmarks

Currently, process reward models (PRMs) have exhibited remarkable potential for test-time scaling. Since large language models (LLMs) regularly generate flawed intermediate reasoning steps when tackling a broad spectrum of reasoning and decision-making tasks, PRMs are required to possess capabilities for detecting process-level errors in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on mathematical reasoning, thereby failing to comprehensively evaluate the error detection ability of PRMs across diverse reasoning scenarios. To mitigate this gap, we introduce GR-Ben, a process-level benchmark specifically designed for assessing PRM's performance across two primary reasoning domains (science and logic) and nine subdomains. We conduct extensive experiments on a diverse set of 22 models, encompassing both PRMs and LLMs, and derive two key findings: (1) In domains beyond mathematical reasoning, the error-detection ability of existing PRMs and LLMs is found to be markedly weaker by comparison.(2) In general, PRMs are less adept at identifying knowledge-based errors, whereas LLMs exhibit poorer performance in detecting computational errors. We hope GR-Ben can foster future researches on PRMs for general domains, thereby enhancing the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.

Millions of clinicians use ChatGPT to support clinical care, but evaluations of the most common use cases in model-clinician conversations are limited. We introduce HealthBench Professional, an open benchmark for evaluating large language models on real tasks that clinicians bring to ChatGPT in the course of their work. The benchmark is organized around three common use cases central to clinical practice: care consult, writing and documentation, and medical research. Each example includes a physician-authored conversation with ChatGPT for Clinicians and is scored via rubrics written and iteratively adjudicated by three or more physicians across three phases. HealthBench Professional examples were carefully selected for quality, representativeness, and difficulty for OpenAI's current frontier models, to enable continued measurement of progress. Difficult examples for recent OpenAI models were enriched by roughly 3.5 times relative to the candidate pool of 15,079 examples. Additionally, about one-third of examples involve physicians conducting deliberate adversarial testing of models. As a strong baseline, we also collected human physician responses for all tasks (unbounded time, specialist-matched, web access). The best scoring system, GPT-5.4 in ChatGPT for Clinicians, outperforms base GPT-5.4, all other models, and human physicians. We hope HealthBench Professional provides the healthcare AI community a measure to track frontier model progress in real-world clinical tasks and build systems that clinicians can trust to improve care.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in recent years, driving their adoption across a wide range of domains, including computer security. In reverse engineering, LLMs are increasingly applied to critical tasks such as function and variable name recovery and type inference. However, despite the rapid growth of research in this area, progress has been hindered by the absence of a standardized dataset. Existing studies rely on disparate datasets, preprocessing pipelines, and evaluation metrics, making fair comparisons between approaches difficult and obscuring a clear understanding of LLM capabilities in binary analysis. To address these challenges, we present REBench, a comprehensive benchmark dataset for evaluating LLMs on binary reverse engineering tasks. REBench consolidates a superset of existing datasets, comprising hundreds of millions of lines of source code and a diverse collection of binaries spanning multiple architectures and optimization levels. REBench adopts a knowledge-base-driven methodology that stores byte-level stack information to generate ground truth, ensuring that task difficulty is preserved while maintaining universal applicability. This design enables fair evaluation across tasks while avoiding simplifications that could bias results. As a use case, we apply REBench to measure the reverse engineering performance of LLMs and the result demonstrates difficulties in complex tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a broad spectrum of tasks, including natural language understanding, dialogue systems, and code generation. Despite evident progress, less attention has been paid to their effectiveness in handling declarative paradigms such as Answer Set Programming (ASP), to date. In this paper we introduce BLAST: The first dedicated benchmarking methodology and associated dataset for evaluating the accuracy of LLMs in generating ASP code. BLAST provides a structured evaluation framework featuring two novel semantic metrics tailored to ASP code generation. The paper presents the results of an empirical evaluation involving ten well-established graph-related problems from the ASP literature and a diverse set of eight state-of-the-art LLMs.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable reasoning, complex optimization tasks remain challenging, requiring domain knowledge and robust implementation. However, existing benchmarks focus narrowly on Mathematical Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, hindering comprehensive evaluation. To address this, we introduce OptiVerse, a comprehensive benchmark of 1,000 curated problems spanning neglected domains, including Stochastic Optimization, Dynamic Optimization, Game Optimization, and Optimal Control, across three difficulty levels: Easy, Medium, and Hard. The experiments with 22 LLMs of different sizes reveal sharp performance degradation on hard problems, where even advanced models like GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3 struggle to exceed 27% accuracy. Through error analysis, we identify that modeling & logic errors remain the primary bottleneck. Consequently, we propose a Dual-View Auditor Agent that improves the accuracy of the LLM modeling process without introducing significant time overhead. OptiVerse will serve as a foundational platform for advancing LLMs in solving complex optimization challenges.

Accurate extraction of structured information from Safety Data Sheets (SDS) remains challenging in industrial safety due to heterogeneous document formats and the limitations of traditional rule-based methods. This study benchmarks state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated SDS data extraction, comparing text-based and multimodal processing pipelines. We systematically evaluate four models: Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1-70B, across three prompting strategies: zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought. The evaluation framework assessed accuracy, latency, and cost across more than 50,000 extracted data fields. Results show that text-based extraction consistently outperforms multimodal processing across all metrics. Gemini 1.5 Pro combined with a Chain-of-Thought prompt achieved the highest accuracy (84%), outperforming GPT-4o (81%) and Claude 3.7 Sonnet (79%). However, no model surpassed the 90% accuracy threshold commonly required for reliable real-world deployment. These findings indicate that general-purpose LLMs are not yet robust enough for unsupervised industrial use, though performance suggests strong potential with task-specific fine-tuning. Future research should focus on domain-adapted training, model calibration, and the integration of Human-in-the-Loop verification to ensure safety-critical reliability.

Aggregate metacognitive quality scores mask within-model variation across MMLU benchmark domains. We administered 1,500 MMLU items (250 per domain, under an a priori six-domain grouping) to 33 frontier LLMs from eight model families and computed Type-2 AUROC per model-domain cell using verbalized confidence (0-100). Total observations: 47,151. Every model with above-chance aggregate monitoring showed non-trivial domain-level variation. Applied/Professional knowledge was reliably the easiest benchmark domain to monitor (mean AUROC = .742, ranked top-2 in 21 of 33 models); Formal Reasoning and Natural Science were reliably the hardest (one of the two ranked bottom-2 in 27 of 33 models). The three middle domains were statistically indistinguishable (Kendall's W = .164). A subject-level coherence analysis (within-domain similarity ratio = 0.95) confirms the six-domain grouping is a pragmatic benchmark taxonomy, not a validated latent construct. Within-family profile-shape clustering is significant for Anthropic, Google-Gemini, and Qwen (permutation p < .0001) but not DeepSeek, Google-Gemma, or OpenAI. Gemma 4 31B showed a +.202 AUROC improvement over Gemma 3 27B. Three models classified Invalid on binary KEEP/WITHDRAW probes produced normal profiles under verbalized confidence, confirming probe-format specificity. Bootstrap 95% CIs on 198 cells have median width .199. Split-half aggregate stability r = .893; profile-level split-half is weaker (grand median r = .184). These results show stable benchmark-domain variation obscured by aggregate metrics, and support benchmark-stage domain screening as a step before deployment in specific application areas.

This paper introduces DW-Bench, a new benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on graph-topology reasoning over data warehouse schemas, explicitly integrating both foreign-key (FK) and data-lineage edges. The benchmark comprises 1,046 automatically generated, verifiably correct questions across five schemas. Experiments show that tool-augmented methods substantially outperform static approaches but plateau on hard compositional subtypes.

LLM benchmarks are increasingly dynamic: instead of containing a fixed set of questions, they define templates and parameters that can generate an effectively unlimited number of question variants. This flexibility is valuable, but it makes evaluation expensive -- especially when the goal is not just determining an average score, but reliably identifying a model's weak spots. This paper introduces a new methodology for identifying hard questions in dynamic benchmarks. It leverages COUP, a recent Bayesian optimization algorithm (Graham, Velez & Leyton-Brown, 2026), after introducing several substantive modifications to make the algorithm suitable for practical LLM pipelines. We also wrap it in a tool that supports flexible choices of datasets and utility functions, enabling users to target the kinds of questions they care about (e.g., low-accuracy questions; questions that are unusually hard relative to their measured complexity). In experiments across a range of benchmarks, we show that our method, dubbed $\texttt{QuickScope}$, discovers truly difficult questions more sample efficiently than standard baselines, while also reducing false positives from noisy outcomes.

Unlike code completion, debugging requires localizing faults and applying targeted edits. We observe that frontier LLMs often regenerate correct but over-edited solutions during debugging. To evaluate how far LLMs are from precise debugging, we introduce the Precise Debugging Benchmark (PDB) framework, which automatically converts any coding dataset into a debugging benchmark with precision-aware evaluation. PDB generates buggy programs by synthesizing verified atomic bugs and composing them into multi-bug programs. We define two novel metrics, edit-level precision and bug-level recall, which measures how many necessary edits are made and how many bugs are resolved. We release two evaluation benchmarks: PDB-Single-Hard on single-line bugs, and PDB-Multi on multi-line bugs. Experiments show that frontier models, such as GPT-5.1-Codex and DeepSeek-V3.2-Thinking, achieve unit-test pass rates above 76% but exhibit precision below 45%, even when explicitly instructed to perform minimal debugging. Finally, we show that iterative and agentic debugging strategies do not substantially improve precision or recall, highlighting the need to rethink post-training pipelines for coding models.

Safe clinical deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires not only high accuracy but also robust uncertainty calibration to ensure models defer to clinicians when appropriate. Our paper investigates how social descriptors of a patient (specifically sexual orientation and religious affiliation) distort these uncertainty signals and model accuracy. Evaluating nine general-purpose and biomedical LLMs on 2,364 medical questions and their counterfactual variants, we demonstrate that identity markers cause a "calibration crisis". "Homosexual" markers consistently trigger performance drops, and intersectional identities produce idiosyncratic, non-additive harms to calibration. Moreover, a clinician-validated case study in an open-ended generation setting confirms that these failures are not an artifact of the multiple-choice format. Our results demonstrate that the presence of social identity cues does not merely shift predictions; it affects the reliability of confidence signals, posing a significant risk to equitable care and safe deployment in confidence-based clinical workflows.

Benchmarking of open-source LLMs for hardware design focuses on which LLMs to use, while treating inference-time decoding configuration as a secondary concern. This work shows that it matters more how an LLM is configured than which model is selected. Benchmarking 26 open-source LLMs on VerilogEval and RTLLM with synthesis-in-the-loop evaluation, the study first maps the current capability landscape and then conducts an extensive 108-configuration hyperparameter sweep on three prominent models. The sweep reveals absolute pass-rate gaps of up to 25.5% between the best and worst settings for the same LLM, which is 5x larger than the average spread observed across various model families under their respective default configurations. Ranking all configurations by Spearman's $ρ$ across the two benchmark suites yields near-zero correlation, demonstrating that optimal configurations do not transfer. These results show that benchmarking conducted under default hyperparameters confounds model capabilities with configuration effects. Realizing the full potential of open-source LLMs for RTL generation requires architecture and benchmark aware hyperparameter selection, as enabled by the proposed methodology.

Differential privacy (DP) has a wide range of applications for protecting data privacy, but designing and verifying DP algorithms requires expert-level reasoning, creating a high barrier for non-expert practitioners. Prior works either rely on specialized verification languages that demand substantial domain expertise or remain semi-automated and require human-in-the-loop guidance. In this work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can automate DP reasoning. We introduce DPrivBench, a benchmark in which each instance asks whether a function or algorithm satisfies a stated DP guarantee under specified assumptions. The benchmark is carefully designed to cover a broad range of DP topics, span diverse difficulty levels, and resist shortcut reasoning through trivial pattern matching. Experiments show that while the strongest models handle textbook mechanisms well, all models struggle with advanced algorithms, revealing substantial gaps in current DP reasoning capabilities. Through further analytic study and failure-mode analysis, we identify several promising directions for improving automated DP reasoning. Our benchmark provides a solid foundation for developing and evaluating such methods, and complements existing benchmarks for mathematical reasoning.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) consistently require new arenas to guide their expanding boundaries, yet their capabilities with hypergraphs remain unexplored. In the real world, hypergraphs have significant practical applications in areas such as life sciences and social communities. Recent advancements in LVLMs have shown promise in understanding complex topologies, yet there remains a lack of a benchmark to delineate the capabilities of LVLMs with hypergraphs, leaving the boundaries of their abilities unclear. To fill this gap, in this paper, we introduce $\texttt{HyperGVL}$, the first benchmark to evaluate the proficiency of LVLMs in hypergraph understanding and reasoning. $\texttt{HyperGVL}$ provides a comprehensive assessment of 12 advanced LVLMs across 84,000 vision-language question-answering (QA) samples spanning 12 tasks, ranging from basic component counting to complex NP-hard problem reasoning. The involved hypergraphs contain multiscale synthetic structures and real-world citation and protein networks. Moreover, we examine the effects of 12 textual and visual hypergraph representations and introduce a generalizable router $\texttt{WiseHyGR}$ that improves LVLMs in hypergraph via learning adaptive representations. We believe that this work is a step forward in connecting hypergraphs with LVLMs.

The paradigm of agentic science requires AI systems to conduct robust reasoning and engage in long-horizon, autonomous exploration. However, current scientific benchmarks remain confined to domain knowledge comprehension and complex reasoning, failing to evaluate the exploratory nature and procedural complexity of real-world research. In this work, we present research-oriented evaluations in theoretical and computational physics, a natural testbed with comprehensive domain knowledge, complex reasoning, and verifiable end-to-end workflows without reliance on experiments. Here we introduce PRL-Bench (Physics Research by LLMs), a benchmark designed to systematically map the capability boundaries of LLMs in executing end-to-end physics research. Constructed from 100 curated papers from the latest issues of Physical Review Letters since August 2025 and validated by domain experts, PRL-Bench covers five major theory- and computation-intensive subfields of modern physics: astrophysics, condensed matter physics, high-energy physics, quantum information, and statistical physics. Each task in the benchmark is designed to replicate the core properties of authentic scientific research, including exploration-oriented formulation, long-horizon workflows, and objective verifiability, thereby reconstructing the essential reasoning processes and research workflows of real physics research. Evaluation across frontier models shows that performance remains limited, with the best overall score below 50, revealing a pronounced gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of real scientific research. PRL-Bench serves a reliable testbed for accessing next generation AI scientists advancing AI systems toward autonomous scientific discovery.

Existing benchmarks for hardware design primarily evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on isolated, component-level tasks such as generating HDL modules from specifications, leaving repository-scale evaluation unaddressed. We introduce HWE-Bench, the first large-scale, repository-level benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on real-world hardware bug repair tasks. HWE-Bench comprises 417 task instances derived from real historical bug-fix pull requests across six major open-source projects spanning both Verilog/SystemVerilog and Chisel, covering RISC-V cores, SoCs, and security roots-of-trust. Each task is grounded in a fully containerized environment where the agent must resolve a real bug report, with correctness validated through the project's native simulation and regression flows. The benchmark is built through a largely automated pipeline that enables efficient expansion to new repositories. We evaluate seven LLMs with four agent frameworks and find that the best agent resolves 70.7% of tasks overall, with performance exceeding 90% on smaller cores but dropping below 65% on complex SoC-level projects. We observe larger performance gaps across models than commonly reported on software benchmarks, and difficulty is driven by project scope and bug-type distribution rather than code size alone. Our failure analysis traces agent failures to three stages of the debugging process: fault localization, hardware-semantic reasoning, and cross-artifact coordination across RTL, configuration, and verification components, providing concrete directions for developing more capable hardware-aware agents.

We present a new approach for benchmarking Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities on research-level mathematics. Existing benchmarks largely rely on static, hand-curated sets of contest or textbook-style problems as proxies for mathematical research. Instead, we establish an updatable benchmark evaluating models directly on the latest research results in mathematics. This consists of an automatic pipeline that extracts lemmas from arXiv and rewrites them into self-contained statements by making all assumptions and required definitions explicit. It results in a benchmark that can be updated regularly with new problems taken directly from human mathematical research, while previous instances can be used for training without compromising future evaluations. We benchmark current state-of-the-art LLMs, which obtain around 10-15$\%$ accuracy in theorem proving (pass@1) depending on the model, showing that there is currently a large margin of progression for LLMs to reach human-level proving capabilities in a research context.

Large language models have achieved striking results in interactive theorem proving, particularly in Lean. However, most benchmarks for LLM-based proof automation are drawn from mathematics in the Mathlib ecosystem, whereas proofs in software verification are developed inside definition-rich codebases with substantial project-specific libraries. We introduce VeriSoftBench, a benchmark of 500 Lean 4 proof obligations drawn from open-source formal-methods developments and packaged to preserve realistic repository context and cross-file dependencies. Our evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized provers yields three observations. First, provers tuned for Mathlib-style mathematics transfer poorly to this repository-centric setting. Second, success is strongly correlated with transitive repository dependence: tasks whose proofs draw on large, multi-hop dependency closures are less likely to be solved. Third, providing curated context restricted to a proof's dependency closure improves performance relative to exposing the full repository, but nevertheless leaves substantial room for improvement. Our benchmark and evaluation suite are released at https://github.com/utopia-group/VeriSoftBench.

Language model benchmarks are pervasive and computationally-efficient proxies for real-world performance. However, many recent works find that benchmarks often fail to predict real utility. Towards bridging this gap, we introduce benchmark alignment, where we use limited amounts of information about model performance to automatically update offline benchmarks, aiming to produce new static benchmarks that predict model pairwise preferences in given test settings. We then propose BenchAlign, the first solution to this problem, which learns preference-aligned weightings for benchmark questions using the question-level performance of language models alongside ranked pairs of models that could be collected during deployment, producing new benchmarks that rank previously unseen models according to these preferences. Our experiments show that our aligned benchmarks can accurately rank unseen models according to models of human preferences, even across different sizes, while remaining interpretable. Overall, our work provides insights into the limits of aligning benchmarks with practical human preferences, which stands to accelerate model development towards real utility.

The prohibitive cost of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates efficient alternatives to full-scale benchmarking. Prevalent approaches address this by identifying a small coreset of items to approximate full-benchmark performance. However, existing methods must estimate a reliable item profile from response patterns across many source models, which becomes statistically unstable when the source pool is small. This dependency is particularly limiting for newly released benchmarks with minimal historical evaluation data. We argue that discrete correctness labels are a lossy view of the model's decision process and fail to capture information encoded in hidden states. To address this, we introduce RepCore, which aligns heterogeneous hidden states into a unified latent space to construct representative coresets. Using these subsets for performance extrapolation, RepCore achieves precise estimation accuracy with as few as ten source models. Experiments on five benchmarks and over 200 models show consistent gains over output-based baselines in ranking correlation and estimation accuracy. Spectral analysis further indicates that the aligned representations contain separable components reflecting broad response tendencies and task-specific reasoning patterns.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for hardware and firmware code generation, but existing studies primarily evaluate functional correctness while largely overlooking security. However, LLM-generated code that appears functionally sound may embed security flaws which could induce catastrophic damages after deployment. This critical research gap motivates us to design a benchmark for assessing security awareness under realistic specifications. In this work, we introduce HardSecBench, a benchmark with 924 tasks spanning Verilog Register Transfer Level (RTL) and firmware-level C, covering 76 hardware-relevant Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entries. Each task includes a structured specification, a secure reference implementation, and executable tests. To automate artifact synthesis, we propose a multi-agent pipeline that decouples synthesis from verification and grounds evaluation in execution evidence, enabling reliable evaluation. We evaluate diverse LLMs and find that they often satisfy functional requirements while leaving security risks. We also find that security results vary with prompting. These findings highlight pressing challenges and offer actionable insights for future advancements in LLM-assisted hardware design. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/chenqirui2002/HardSecBench.

Multi-hop kinship reasoning is a natural testbed for LLM compositionality, but existing benchmarks (notably CLUTRR) cover only the descriptive Eskimo system. We introduce KinshipQA, a procedurally-generated benchmark covering seven anthropologically-documented kinship systems (Eskimo, Sudanese, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Dravidian, Crow, Omaha) and up to six reasoning hops, with a tunable simulator horizon that eliminates exact-instance pretraining overlap. Evaluating six LLMs, we find a 40.9% accuracy drop when reasoning shifts from biological multi-hop to culturally-marked classification on the five non-descriptive systems. The drop holds for every non-descriptive system and is largest for the two skewing systems (Crow, Omaha), persists under chain-of-thought and few-shot prompting, and compounds with depth: at 5--6 hops cultural override falls to 10.6% while biological composition over the same chains remains at 58.6%. Under identical rule access humans reach 89.0% versus 50.7% for LLMs, so the questions are reliably solvable once the rule is supplied. Two follow-up experiments suggest distinct contributors. A fictional-rule control swapping system labels and kin terms for invented strings raises accuracy by 6.1%, implicating familiar English surface forms. An in-context-rule probe prepending the override rule helps skewing systems (+17.1%) but hurts non-skewing systems whose baseline already exceeds about 60% (-13.4%), consistent with a missing skewing prior alongside rule interference where the model already has a working approximation. Our code and data are publicly available on GitHub.

Large language models are becoming increasingly significant in financial applications. Nevertheless, prevailing benchmarks are largely dependent on simulated or generic data, which leads to a significant gap between reported performance and actual efficacy in real-world scenarios. To tackle this challenge, we present BizFinBench.v2, the first integrated offline and online benchmark built upon authentic user query-response data from both Chinese and U.S. equity markets. It comprises 28,860 questions across eight offline and two online tasks. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves a mere 61.5% accuracy, still failing to meet the practical business requirement (84.8%). Among the evaluated commercial models, DeepSeek-R1 exhibits superior investment efficacy. Error analysis grounded in real financial practice reveals persistent limitations in existing models. By overcoming the constraints of prior benchmarks, BizFinBench.v2 provides a substantiated foundation for advancing LLM deployment in the financial sector. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/HiThink-Research/BizFinBench.v2.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated several emergent behaviors with scale, including reasoning and fluency in long-form text generation. However, they continue to struggle with tasks requiring precise spatial and positional reasoning. ASCII art, a symbolic medium where characters encode structure and form, provides a unique probe of this limitation. We introduce ASCIIBench, a novel benchmark for evaluating both the generation and classification of ASCII-text images. ASCIIBench consists of a filtered dataset of 5,315 class-labeled ASCII images and is, to our knowledge, the first publicly available benchmark of its kind. Alongside the dataset, we release weights for a fine-tuned CLIP model adapted to capture ASCII structure, enabling the evaluation of LLM-generated ASCII art. Our analysis shows that cosine similarity over CLIP embeddings fails to separate most ASCII categories, yielding chance-level performance even for low-variance classes. In contrast, classes with high internal mean similarity exhibit clear discriminability, revealing that the bottleneck lies in representation rather than generational variance. These findings position ASCII art as a stress test for multimodal representations and motivate the development of new embedding methods or evaluation metrics tailored to symbolic visual modalities. All resources are available at https://github.com/ASCIIBench/ASCIIBench.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential to accelerate scientific discovery as valuable tools for analyzing data, generating hypotheses, and supporting innovative approaches in various scientific fields. In this work, we investigate how LLMs can handle the transition from conceptual research ideas to well-structured research plans. Effective research planning not only supports scientists in advancing their research but also represents a crucial capability for the development of autonomous research agents. Despite its importance, the field lacks a systematic understanding of LLMs' research planning capability. To rigorously measure this capability, we introduce the Idea2Plan task and Idea2Plan Bench, a set of benchmarks built from ICML 2025 and Nature Mental Health papers released after major LLM training cutoffs. Each benchmark instance includes a research idea and a grading rubric capturing the key components of valid plans. We further propose Idea2Plan JudgeEval, a complementary benchmark to assess the reliability of LLM-based judges against expert annotations. Experimental results show that GPT-5 achieves the strongest performance on the benchmark, though substantial headroom remains for improvement. Our study provides new insights into LLMs' capability for research planning and lays the groundwork for future progress.

Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as a lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, and reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a large-scale competitive programming benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated problems, averaging 60 official test cases each, drawn from 72 contests across 14 Informatics Olympiads held between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench has four key features: (1) expert-designed tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive test cases; (2) direct comparison to elite human contestants; (3) continuous updates to reduce contamination risk; and (4) a fully offline, reproducible evaluation system. Benchmarking 34 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves an 81.76th percentile, still falling short of top human contestants, while among the open-weight models, GPT-OSS-120B reaches only the 60th percentile. Reasoning-trace analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration. Finally, analyses across release dates, task familiarity, and code similarity find minimal evidence of data contamination in our benchmark. Our leaderboard, code, and data are available at: https://liveoibench.github.io/.

Organic reaction mechanisms describe the step-wise elementary processes by which reactants transform into intermediates and products, and are fundamental to understanding chemical reactivity and guiding molecular and reaction de-sign. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise on chemical tasks such as synthesis design, it remains unclear to what extent this reflects genuine chemical reasoning capabilities: the ability to generate chemically valid intermediates, maintain consistency across reaction steps, and follow logically coherent multi-step pathways. To investigate this, we introduce oMeBench, the first large-scale, expert-curated benchmark for organic mechanism reasoning, comprising over 10,000 annotated mechanistic steps with reaction type labels, intermediate structures, and difficulty ratings. To enable fine-grained evaluation, we further propose oMeS, a dynamic scoring framework that jointly assesses step-level logical consistency and chemical structural similarity. Systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals that while current models exhibit promising chemical intuition, they struggle to produce correct and consistent reasoning across multi-step mechanisms. Notably, combining prompting strategies with fine-tuning enables smaller-scale models to achieve performance comparable to closed-source frontier models. We hope oMeBench will serve as a rigorous foundation for advancing AI systems toward genuine chemical reasoning.

While most autoregressive LLMs are constrained to one-by-one decoding, diffusion LLMs (dLLMs) have attracted growing interest for their potential to dramatically accelerate inference through parallel decoding. Despite this promise, the conditional independence assumption in dLLMs causes parallel decoding to ignore token dependencies, inevitably degrading generation quality when these dependencies are strong. However, existing works largely overlook these inherent challenges, and evaluations on standard benchmarks (e.g., math and coding) are not sufficient to capture the quality degradation caused by parallel decoding. To address this gap, we first provide an information-theoretic analysis of parallel decoding. We then conduct case studies on analytically tractable synthetic list operations from both data distribution and decoding strategy perspectives, offering quantitative insights that highlight the fundamental limitations of parallel decoding. Building on these insights, we propose ParallelBench, the first benchmark specifically designed for dLLMs, featuring realistic tasks that are trivial for humans and autoregressive LLMs yet exceptionally challenging for dLLMs under parallel decoding. Using ParallelBench, we systematically analyze both dLLMs and autoregressive LLMs, revealing that: (i) dLLMs under parallel decoding can suffer dramatic quality degradation in real-world scenarios, and (ii) current parallel decoding strategies struggle to adapt their degree of parallelism based on task difficulty, thus failing to achieve meaningful speedup without compromising quality. Our findings underscore the pressing need for innovative decoding methods that can overcome the current speed-quality trade-off. We release our benchmark to help accelerate the development of truly efficient dLLMs.

As LLMs rapidly saturate existing benchmarks, automated benchmark creation using LLMs (LLM as a benchmark) where a model generates test inputs (LLM as a testset) and evaluates outputs (LLM as an evaluator) has gained traction as a cheap alternative to human curation. We show that this paradigm has a fundamental problem: LLM-generated benchmarks systematically favor the model that created them. Using machine translation as our primary testbed, we find that self bias arises from two compounding sources, LLM as a testset and LLM as an evaluator, and their combination amplifies the effect. Crucially, even when test data is generated with explicit diversity controls, each modelś implicit stylistic tendencies produce homogeneous, model-specific outputs that inflate its own scores. Increasing source text diversity, using our proposed diversity metric, partially mitigates this bias. Self bias is strong enough to cause each model to rank itself first, overriding the peer consensus ordering. We confirm that the phenomenon extends to open-ended generation on the Chatbot Arena task.

As the mathematical capabilities of large language models (LLMs) improve, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate their performance on research-level tasks at the frontier of mathematical knowledge. However, existing benchmarks are limited, as they focus solely on final-answer questions or high-school competition problems. To address this gap, we introduce IMProofBench, a private benchmark consisting of 77 peer-reviewed problems developed by expert mathematicians. Each problem requires a detailed proof and is paired with subproblems that have final answers, supporting both an evaluation by human experts and a large-scale quantitative analysis through automated grading. Furthermore, unlike prior benchmarks, the evaluation setup simulates a realistic research environment: models operate in an agentic framework with tools like web search for literature review and mathematical software such as SageMath. Our results show that current LLMs can already solve a significant percentage of research-level questions. IMProofBench will continue to evolve as a dynamic benchmark in collaboration with the mathematical community, ensuring its relevance for evaluating the next generation of LLMs.

Innovation is a key driving force of human civilization. As the body of knowledge has grown considerably, bridging knowledge across different disciplines, where significant innovation often emerges, has become increasingly challenging. The recent advancements in machine learning models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), have provided effective access to extensive knowledge sources and shown impressive abilities in reasoning, rendering significant opportunities for interdisciplinary discovery. Our research aims to understand the capabilities of state-of-the-art LLMs in integrating knowledge from different fields for interdisciplinary research (IDR). To address this fundamental problem, we introduce IDRBench, a pioneering framework that includes both datasets and evaluation tasks: (1) IDR Paper Identification, (2) IDR Idea Integration, and (3) IDR Idea Recommendation. Our study on ten mainstream LLMs provides a comprehensive analysis of their behavior and establishes benchmarks and baselines for future research. To the best of our knowledge, IDRBench is the first to provide a comprehensive investigation of LLMs' IDR capability.

Although many benchmarks evaluate the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domains such as mathematics, coding, or data wrangling, few abstract away from domain specifics to examine reasoning as a capability in and of itself. We contribute a novel type of benchmark evaluating the inductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs that is inspired by the forward reconstruction task from historical linguistics but is formulated in an extremely simple, general way (in the form of Programming by Examples). The task involves generating a cascade of simple string rewrite programs to transform a given list of input strings into a list of desired output strings. We present a fully automated pipeline that programmatically generates problems of this type with controllable difficulty, enabling scalable evaluation of reasoning models while avoiding contamination. Using this approach, we construct two benchmarks: PBEBench-Lite, which efficiently stratifies models of varying capabilities, and PBEBench, which requires models to induce programs similar in complexity to those constructed by historical linguists. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between models that leverage test-time compute or LCoT (long chain-of-thought) reasoning and those that do not. Moreover, although recent models show promise, the solve rate for both of them drops below 5% for hard instances of the PBEBench dataset (ground truth cascade lengths of 20 and 30, respectively), falling well short of realistic historical linguistics requirements even with computationally expensive, popular scaling techniques from the PBE and reasoning literature. Additionally, we also study the effectiveness of different scaling strategies and the impact of various hyperparameters on the difficulty of the generated data using gpt-oss-120b, the best-performing open-source model.

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

Recent studies have raised significant concerns regarding the reliability of current mathematics benchmarks, highlighting issues such as simplistic design and potential data contamination. Consequently, developing a reliable benchmark that effectively evaluates large language models' (LLMs) genuine capabilities in mathematical reasoning remains a critical challenge. To address these concerns, we propose RV-Bench, a novel evaluation methodology for Benchmarking LLMs with Random Variables in mathematical reasoning. Specifically, we build question-generating functions to produce random variable questions (RVQs), whose background content mirrors original benchmark problems, but with randomized variable combinations, rendering them "unseen" to LLMs. Models must completely understand the inherent question pattern to correctly answer RVQs with diverse variable combinations. Thus, an LLM's genuine reasoning capability is reflected through its accuracy and robustness on RV-Bench. We conducted extensive experiments on over 30 representative LLMs across more than 1,000 RVQs. Our findings propose that LLMs exhibit a proficiency imbalance between encountered and ``unseen'' data distributions. Furthermore, RV-Bench reveals that proficiency generalization across similar mathematical reasoning tasks is limited, but we verified it can still be effectively elicited through test-time scaling.

Code-related benchmarks play a critical role in evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet their quality fundamentally shapes how the community interprets model capabilities. In the past few years, awareness of benchmark quality has grown. Yet, after a decade-scale (2014-2025) survey over 672 code benchmarks, we observed a lag between growing awareness and actual practice. For example, in 2025 alone, the number of benchmarks that ignore code coverage when providing test cases nearly matches the total count accumulated across the previous ten years. In response, we take a clear position: Code benchmarks must prioritize rigor in benchmark construction, reliability in evaluation, and reproducibility in release. To operationalize this position, we introduce a code benchmark guideline HOW2BENCH with 55 checklists. Finally, our further human study also exposed that the current issues not only stem from the significant effort required, but also from a lack of awareness regarding their importance.