Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) underscore the need for more comprehensive evaluation methods to accurately assess their reasoning capabilities. Existing benchmarks are often domain-specific and thus cannot fully capture an LLM's general reasoning potential. To address this limitation, we introduce the Knowledge Orthogonal Reasoning Gymnasium (KORGym)1, a dynamic evaluation platform inspired by KOR-Bench [1] and Gymnasium [2]. KORGym offers over fifty games in either textual or visual formats and supports interactive, multi-turn assessments with reinforcement learning scenarios. Using KORGym, we conduct extensive experiments on 19 LLMs and 8 VLMs, revealing consistent reasoning patterns within model families and demonstrating the superior performance of closed-source models. Further analysis examines the effects of modality, reasoning strategies, reinforcement learning techniques, and response length on model performance. We expect KORGym to become a valuable resource for advancing LLM reasoning research and developing evaluation methodologies suited to complex, interactive environments.

We introduce EvaLearn, a pioneering benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their learning capability and efficiency in challenging tasks, a critical, yet underexplored aspect of model potential. EvaLearn contains 648 challenging problems across six task types, grouped into 182 sequences, each sequence dedicated to one task type. Diverging from most existing benchmarks that evaluate models in parallel, EvaLearn requires models to solve problems sequentially, allowing them to leverage the experience gained from previous solutions. EvaLearn provides five comprehensive automated metrics to evaluate models and quantify their learning capability and efficiency. We extensively benchmark nine frontier models and observe varied performance profiles: some models, such as Claude-3.7-sonnet,

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities in code-related tasks, but their robustness in code reasoning under perturbations remains underexplored. We introduce CODECRASH, a stress-testing framework with 1,279 questions from CRUXEVAL and LIVECODEBENCH, designed to evaluate reasoning reliability under structural perturbations and misleading natural language (NL) contexts. Through a systematic evaluation of 17 LLMs, we find that models often shortcut reasoning by over-relying on NL cues, leading to an average performance degradation of 23.2% in output prediction tasks. Even with Chain-of-Thought reasoning, models on average still have a 13.8%drop due to distractibility and rationalization, revealing a lack of critical reasoning capability to distinguish the actual code behaviors. While Large Reasoning Models with internal reasoning mechanisms improve robustness by fostering critical thinking, plausible yet incorrect hints can trigger pathological self-reflection, causing 2 3 times token consumption and even catastrophic cognitive dissonance in extreme cases for QwQ-32B. We refer to this phenomenon as Reasoning Collapse. CODECRASH provides a rigorous benchmark for evaluating robustness in code reasoning, guiding future research and development toward more reliable and resilient models.

Designing experiments and result interpretations are core scientific competencies, particularly in biology, where researchers perturb complex systems to uncover the underlying systems. Recent efforts to evaluate the scientific capabilities of large language models (LLMs) fail to test these competencies because wet-lab experimentation is prohibitively expensive: in expertise, time and equipment. We introduce SciGym, a first-in-class benchmark that assesses LLMs' iterative experiment design and analysis abilities in open-ended scientific discovery tasks. SciGym overcomes the challenge of wet-lab costs by running a dry lab of biological systems. These models, encoded in Systems Biology Markup Language, are efficient for generating simulated data, making them ideal testbeds for experimentation on realistically complex systems.

Recent generations of frontier language models have introduced Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) that generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers. While these models demonstrate improved performance on reasoning benchmarks, their fundamental capabilities, scaling properties, and limitations remain insufficiently understood. Current evaluations primarily focus on established mathematical and coding benchmarks, emphasizing final answer accuracy. However, this evaluation paradigm often suffers from data contamination and does not provide insights into the reasoning traces' structure and quality. In this work, we systematically investigate these gaps with the help of controllable puzzle environments that allow precise manipulation of compositional complexity while maintaining consistent logical structures.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred transformative applications in various domains, ranging from open-source to proprietary LLMs. However, jailbreak attacks, which aim to break safety alignment and user compliance by tricking the target LLMs into answering harmful and risky responses, are becoming an urgent concern. The practice of red-teaming for LLMs is to proactively explore potential risks and error-prone instances before the release of frontier AI technology. This paper proposes an agentic workflow to automate and scale the red-teaming process of LLMs through the Composition-of-Principles (CoP) framework, where human users provide a set of red-teaming principles as instructions to an AI agent to automatically orchestrate effective red-teaming strategies and generate jailbreak prompts. Distinct from existing red-teaming methods, our CoP framework provides a unified and extensible framework to encompass and orchestrate human-provided red-teaming principles to enable the automated discovery of new red-teaming strategies. When tested against leading LLMs, CoP1 reveals unprecedented safety risks by finding novel jailbreak prompts and improving the best-known single-turn attack success rate by up to 19.0 times.

The growing interest in employing large language models (LLMs) for decision-making in social and economic contexts has raised questions about their potential to function as agents in these domains. A significant number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes. In this paper, we examine whether LLM responses adhere to fundamental fairness concepts such as equitability, envy-freeness, and Rawlsian maximin, and investigate their alignment with human preferences. We evaluate the performance of several LLMs, providing a comparative benchmark of their ability to reflect these measures. Our results demonstrate a lack of alignment between current LLM responses and human distributional preferences. Moreover, LLMs are unable to utilize money as a transferable resource to mitigate inequality. Nonetheless, we demonstrate a stark contrast when (some) LLMs are tasked with selecting from a predefined menu of options rather than generating one. In addition, we analyze the robustness of LLM responses to variations in semantic factors (e.g., intentions or personas) or non-semantic prompting changes (e.g., templates or orderings). Finally, we highlight potential strategies aimed at enhancing the alignment of LLM behavior with well-established fairness concepts.

Reasoning-enhanced large language models (RLLMs), whether explicitly trained for reasoning or prompted via chain-of-thought (CoT), have achieved state-ofthe-art performance on many complex reasoning tasks. However, we uncover a surprising and previously overlooked phenomenon: explicit CoT reasoning can significantly degrade instruction-following accuracy. Evaluating 20+ models on two benchmarks: IFEval (with simple, rule-verifiable constraints) and ComplexBench (with complex, compositional constraints), we consistently observe performance drops when CoT prompting is applied. Through large-scale case studies and an attention-based analysis, we identify common patterns where reasoning either helps (e.g., with formatting or lexical precision) or hurts (e.g., by neglecting simple constraints or introducing unnecessary content). We propose a metric, constraint attention, to quantify model focus during generation and show that CoT reasoning often diverts attention away from instruction-relevant tokens. To mitigate these effects, we introduce and evaluate four strategies: in-context learning, selfreflection, self-selective reasoning, and classifier-selective reasoning. Our results demonstrate that selective reasoning strategies, particularly classifier-selective reasoning, can substantially recover lost performance. To our knowledge, this is the first work to systematically expose reasoning-induced failures in instructionfollowing and offer practical mitigation strategies.

To quantify this stagnation, we introduce LIVEVQA, the first-of-its-kind dataset featuring 107,143 samples and 12 categories data specifically designed to support research in both seeking and updating with live visual knowledge. Drawing from recent news articles, video platforms, and academic publications in April 2024-May 2025, LIVEVQA enables evaluation of how models handle latest visual information beyond their knowledge boundaries and how current methods help to update them. Our comprehensive benchmarking of 17 state-of-the-art MLLMs reveals significant performance gaps on content beyond knowledge cutoff, and tool-use or agentic visual seeking framework drastically gain an average of 327% improvement. Furthermore, we explore parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods to update MLLMs with new visual knowledge. We dive deeply to the critical balance between adapter capacity and model capability when updating MLLMs with new visual knowledge. All the experimental dataset and source code are publicly available at: https://livevqa.github.io.

Existing code generation benchmarks primarily evaluate functional correctness, with limited attention to code efficiency, and they are often restricted to a single language such as Python. To address this gap, we introduce EFFIBENCH-X, the first multi-language benchmark designed to measure the efficiency of LLM-generated code. EFFIBENCH-X supports Python, C++, Java, JavaScript, Ruby, and Golang. It comprises competitive programming tasks with human-expert solutions as efficiency baselines. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs on EFFIBENCH-X reveals that while models generate functionally correct code, they consistently underperform human experts in efficiency. Even the most efficient LLM-generated solutions (Qwen3-32B) achieve only around 62% of human efficiency on average, with significant language-specific variations.