STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench: Evaluating Complex Multi-Function Comprehension and Fine-Grained Execution Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05193v1
• Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:28:43 GMT
• Title: STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench: Evaluating Complex Multi-Function Comprehension and Fine-Grained Execution Reasoning
• Authors: Kaiwen Yan, Yuhang Chang, Zirui Guo, Yaling Mou, Jiang Ming, Jingwei Sun,
• Abstract summary: We present STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench (SX-Bench), a novel benchmark for complex multi-function understanding and fine-grained execution reasoning.<n>SX-Bench is highly discriminative, even the state-of-the-art OpenAI-O3 achieves only 78.37 percent accuracy on Hard-Reasoning tasks.
• Score: 6.282781900938977
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in code intelligence, yet systematically evaluating their code understanding and reasoning abilities remains challenging. Mainstream benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP primarily assess functional correctness, while reasoning benchmarks like CRUXEVAL are limited to single-function, low-complexity scenarios. As a result, advanced models achieve nearly saturated scores, limiting their discriminative power. To address this, we present STEPWISE-CODEX-Bench (SX-Bench), a novel benchmark designed for complex multi-function understanding and fine-grained execution reasoning. SX-Bench features tasks involving collaboration among multiple sub-functions (e.g., chained calls, nested loops), shifting evaluation towards overall control and data flow modeling. It defines "computation steps" as the minimal execution unit and requires models to predict the total number of steps in reasoning tasks, thereby assessing a model's in-depth understanding of dynamic execution beyond simple I/O matching. Evaluation on over 20 mainstream models (including 14 reasoning-enhanced models) demonstrates that SX-Bench is highly discriminative: even the state-of-the-art OpenAI-O3 achieves only 78.37 percent accuracy on Hard-Reasoning tasks, much lower than its saturated scores on previous benchmarks, thereby revealing bottlenecks in complex and fine-grained reasoning. We also release an automated pipeline combining program synthesis, symbolic execution, and LLM-aided validation for efficient benchmark generation and quality assurance. SX-Bench advances code evaluation from "single-function verification" to "multi-function dynamic reasoning," providing a key tool for the in-depth assessment of advanced code intelligence models.

Related papers

• Visual Document Understanding and Question Answering: A Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework with Test-Time Scaling [83.78874399606379]
  We propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling.<n>It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration.<n>It shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T12:52:09Z)
• Hierarchical Reasoning Model [16.223136644998203]
  HRM executes sequential reasoning tasks in a single forward pass without explicit supervision of the intermediate process.<n>With only 27 million parameters, HRM achieves exceptional performance on complex reasoning tasks using only 1000 training samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-26T19:39:54Z)
• SPARE: Single-Pass Annotation with Reference-Guided Evaluation for Automatic Process Supervision and Reward Modelling [70.01883340129204]
  Single-Pass.<n>with Reference-Guided Evaluation (SPARE)<n>Novel structured framework that enables single-pass, per-step annotation by aligning each solution step to one or multiple steps in a reference solution, accompanied by explicit reasoning for evaluation.<n>SPARE achieves competitive performance on challenging mathematical datasets while offering 2.6 times greater efficiency, requiring only 38% of the runtime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T14:37:59Z)
• TurnBench-MS: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multi-Turn, Multi-Step Reasoning in Large Language Models [5.6525926183880255]
  We introduce TurnBench, a novel benchmark that evaluates multi-turn, multi-step reasoning through an interactive code-breaking task.<n>In each episode, a model must uncover hidden logical or arithmetic rules by making sequential guesses, receiving structured feedback, and integrating clues across multiple rounds.<n>TurnBench includes two modes: Classic, which tests standard reasoning, and Nightmare, which introduces increased complexity and requires robust inferential chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T05:47:50Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• VerifyThisBench: Generating Code, Specifications, and Proofs All at Once [5.783301542485619]
  We introduce a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on end-to-end program verification tasks.<n>Our evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, such as o3-mini, achieve a pass rate of less than 4%, with many outputs failing to compile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T19:00:52Z)
• Computational Reasoning of Large Language Models [51.629694188014064]
  We introduce textbfTuring Machine Bench, a benchmark to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute reasoning processes.<n> TMBench incorporates four key features: self-contained and knowledge-agnostic reasoning, a minimalistic multi-step structure, controllable difficulty, and a theoretical foundation based on Turing machine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T13:52:47Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• L0-Reasoning Bench: Evaluating Procedural Correctness in Language Models via Simple Program Execution [31.19899557805607]
  Complex reasoning tasks often rely on the ability to consistently and accurately apply simple rules across incremental steps.<n>We introduce L0-Bench, a language model benchmark for testing procedural correctness.<n>L0-Bench grades models on their ability to generate step-by-step, error-free execution traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T18:54:56Z)
• Large Language Models Meet Symbolic Provers for Logical Reasoning Evaluation [24.081573908824353]
  First-order logic (FOL) reasoning is pivotal for intelligent systems.<n>Existing benchmarks often rely on extensive human annotation or handcrafted templates.<n>We propose a novel framework called ProverGen that synergizes the generative strengths of Large Language Models with the rigor and precision of symbolic provers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:31:54Z)
• COrAL: Order-Agnostic Language Modeling for Efficient Iterative Refinement [80.18490952057125]
  Iterative refinement has emerged as an effective paradigm for enhancing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) on complex tasks. We propose Context-Wise Order-Agnostic Language Modeling (COrAL) to overcome these challenges. Our approach models multiple token dependencies within manageable context windows, enabling the model to perform iterative refinement internally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T23:56:19Z)

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.