Frontier LLMs Still Struggle with Simple Reasoning Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07313v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 22:22:49 GMT
• Title: Frontier LLMs Still Struggle with Simple Reasoning Tasks
• Authors: Alan Malek, Jiawei Ge, Jiawei Ge, Chi Jin, András György, Csaba Szepesvári,
• Abstract summary: This work studies the performance of frontier language models on a broad set of "easy" reasoning problems.<n>We create a suite of procedurally generated simple reasoning tasks, including counting, first-order logic, proof trees, and travel planning.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art thinking models consistently fail on such problems and for similar reasons.
• Score: 53.497499123166804
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) demonstrate advanced reasoning capabilities-achieving remarkable performance on challenging competitive math and coding benchmarks-they also frequently fail on tasks that are easy for humans. This work studies the performance of frontier LLMs on a broad set of such "easy" reasoning problems. By extending previous work in the literature, we create a suite of procedurally generated simple reasoning tasks, including counting, first-order logic, proof trees, and travel planning, with changeable parameters (such as document length. or the number of variables in a math problem) that can arbitrarily increase the amount of computation required to produce the answer while preserving the fundamental difficulty. While previous work showed that traditional, non-thinking models can be made to fail on such problems, we demonstrate that even state-of-the-art thinking models consistently fail on such problems and for similar reasons (e.g. statistical shortcuts, errors in intermediate steps, and difficulties in processing long contexts). To further understand the behavior of the models, we introduce the unpuzzles dataset, a different "easy" benchmark consisting of trivialized versions of well-known math and logic puzzles. Interestingly, while modern LLMs excel at solving the original puzzles, they tend to fail on the trivialized versions, exhibiting several systematic failure patterns related to memorizing the originals. We show that this happens even if the models are otherwise able to solve problems with different descriptions but requiring the same logic. Our results highlight that out-of-distribution generalization is still problematic for frontier language models and the new generation of thinking models, even for simple reasoning tasks, and making tasks easier does not necessarily imply improved performance.

Related papers

• THOUGHTTERMINATOR: Benchmarking, Calibrating, and Mitigating Overthinking in Reasoning Models [65.39456695678713]
  We introduce approximate measures of problem-level difficulty and demonstrate that a clear relationship between problem difficulty and optimal token spend exists.<n>We find that in general, reasoning models are poorly calibrated, particularly on easy problems.<n>We introduce THOUGHTTERMINATOR, a training-free black box decoding technique that significantly improves reasoning model calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T22:16:30Z)
• Climbing the Ladder of Reasoning: What LLMs Can-and Still Can't-Solve after SFT? [59.418994222096885]
  We conduct a detailed analysis of model performance on the AIME24 dataset.<n>We categorize questions into four tiers (Easy, Medium, Hard, and Extremely Hard)<n>We find that progression from Easy to Medium tier requires adopting an R1 reasoning style with minimal SFT-1K instances.<n>Exh-level questions present a fundamentally different challenge; they require unconventional problem-solving skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T03:39:38Z)
• DAST: Difficulty-Adaptive Slow-Thinking for Large Reasoning Models [30.184895117009457]
  This paper introduces Difficulty-Adaptive Slow Thinking (DAST), a novel framework that enables models to autonomously adjust the length of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) based on problem difficulty.<n>Experiments on diverse datasets and model scales demonstrate that DAST effectively mitigates overthinking while preserving reasoning accuracy on complex problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T14:23:06Z)
• MATH-Perturb: Benchmarking LLMs' Math Reasoning Abilities against Hard Perturbations [90.07275414500154]
  We observe significant performance drops on MATH-P-Hard across various models.<n>We also raise concerns about a novel form of memorization where models blindly apply learned problem-solving skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T13:31:46Z)
• FCoReBench: Can Large Language Models Solve Challenging First-Order Combinatorial Reasoning Problems? [25.352721856952655]
  First-order reasoning problems can be instantiated with infinite number of problem instances of varying sizes.<n>We present FCoReBench, a dataset of 40 such challenging problems, along with scripts to generate problem instances of varying sizes and automatically verify and generate their solutions.<n>We propose SymPro-LM, which combines LLMs with both symbolic solvers and program interpreters, along with feedback from a few solved examples, to achieve huge performance gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-04T20:56:09Z)
• Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality [109.79516190693415]
  We investigate the limits of transformer large language models across three representative compositional tasks. These tasks require breaking problems down into sub-steps and synthesizing these steps into a precise answer. Our empirical findings suggest that transformer LLMs solve compositional tasks by reducing multi-step compositional reasoning into linearized subgraph matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T23:24:14Z)
• PAL: Program-aided Language Models [112.94785609781503]
  We present Program-Aided Language models (PaL) to understand natural language problems. PaL offloads the solution step to a programmatic runtime such as a Python interpreter. We set new state-of-the-art results in all 12 benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T18:56:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.