Empirical Evidence of Complexity-Induced Limits in Large Language Models on Finite Discrete State-Space Problems with Explicit Validity Constraints

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13371v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 00:35:22 GMT
• Title: Empirical Evidence of Complexity-Induced Limits in Large Language Models on Finite Discrete State-Space Problems with Explicit Validity Constraints
• Abstract summary: We systematically evaluate the robustness of reasoning in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) under progressively increasing problem complexity.<n>We construct a suite of nine classical reasoning tasks: Boolean Satisfiability, Cryptarithmetic, Graph Coloring, River Crossing, Tower of Hanoi, Water Jug, Checker Jumping, Sudoku, and Rubik's Cube.<n>We observe substantial accuracy declines, often exceeding 50%, accompanied by inconsistent reasoning traces, constraint violations, loss of state tracking, and confidently incorrect outputs.
• Score: 0.6524460254566904
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as possessing strong reasoning capabilities, supported by high performance on mathematical, logical, and planning benchmarks. However, most existing evaluations rely on aggregate accuracy over fixed datasets, obscuring how reasoning behavior evolves as task complexity increases. In this work, we introduce a controlled benchmarking framework to systematically evaluate the robustness of reasoning in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) under progressively increasing problem complexity. We construct a suite of nine classical reasoning tasks: Boolean Satisfiability, Cryptarithmetic, Graph Coloring, River Crossing, Tower of Hanoi, Water Jug, Checker Jumping, Sudoku, and Rubik's Cube, each parameterized to precisely control complexity while preserving underlying semantics. Using deterministic validators, we evaluate multiple open and proprietary LRMs across low, intermediate, and high complexity regimes, ensuring that only fully valid solutions are accepted. Our results reveal a consistent phase transition like behavior: models achieve high accuracy at low complexity but degrade sharply beyond task specific complexity thresholds. We formalize this phenomenon as reasoning collapse. Across tasks, we observe substantial accuracy declines, often exceeding 50%, accompanied by inconsistent reasoning traces, constraint violations, loss of state tracking, and confidently incorrect outputs. Increased reasoning length does not reliably improve correctness, and gains in one problem family do not generalize to others. These findings highlight the need for evaluation methodologies that move beyond static benchmarks and explicitly measure reasoning robustness under controlled complexity.

Related papers

• A Temporal Reasoning Benchmarking Framework for LRMs via Difficulty-controlled and Dynamic Test Generation [11.290047096794082]
  We introduce TRACE, a testing framework that models temporal reasoning as constraint satisfaction problems via Allen's Interval Algebra.<n>TRACE provides a robust, automated platform for benchmarking the true temporal reasoning capabilities of LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T08:14:53Z)
• Breaking the Evaluation Paradox: Evaluating High-Entropy Search with Computationally Irreducible Constraints [24.33065543278173]
  evaluating the exhaustive search capabilities of large language models is plagued by a paradox.<n> verifying completeness requires complete ground truth, yet high-entropy enumeration tasks make such ground truth impossible for humans to create.<n>We introduce VERITAS, a framework built on the principle of computationally irreducible constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T02:45:01Z)
• SuCo: Sufficiency-guided Continuous Adaptive Reasoning [59.17222918775686]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often generate excessively long Chain-of-Thoughts (CoT)<n>Existing efforts to mitigate this inefficiency typically rely on discrete reasoning modes or fixed budget tiers.<n>We introduce Minimal Sufficient CoT (MSC), defined as the shortest prefix of a CoT trajectory which is adequate for producing the correct answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T08:52:15Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: Diagnosing Algebraic Reasoning Failures in LLMs Across Nine Complexity Dimensions [8.616356693448985]
  Algebraic reasoning remains one of the most informative stress tests for large language models.<n>Current benchmarks provide no mechanism for attributing failure to a specific cause.<n>We introduce a nine-dimension framework in which each factor is varied independently while all others are held fixed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T08:12:45Z)
• CoT-Seg: Rethinking Segmentation with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning and Self-Correction [50.67483317563736]
  This paper aims to explore a system that can think step-by-step, look up information if needed, generate results, self-evaluate its own results, and refine the results.<n>We introduce CoT-Seg, a training-free framework that rethinks reasoning segmentation by combining chain-of-thought reasoning with self-correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T11:41:54Z)
• seqBench: A Tunable Benchmark to Quantify Sequential Reasoning Limits of LLMs [1.0519693622157462]
  We introduce seqBench, a benchmark for probing sequential reasoning limits in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that even top-performing models systematically fail on seqBench's structured reasoning tasks despite minimal search complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T01:32:13Z)
• Less is More Tokens: Efficient Math Reasoning via Difficulty-Aware Chain-of-Thought Distillation [82.2288581878096]
  We present a framework for difficulty-aware reasoning that teaches models to dynamically adjust reasoning depth based on problem complexity.<n>We show that models can be endowed with such dynamic inference pathways without any architectural modifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T16:40:13Z)
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [16.266145641151375]
  Large Reasoning Models generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers.<n>We show that LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities.<n>We also investigate the reasoning traces in more depth, studying the patterns of explored solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T22:42:29Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Critical Thinking: Which Kinds of Complexity Govern Optimal Reasoning Length? [72.70486097967124]
  We formalize a framework using deterministic finite automata (DFAs)<n>We show that there exists an optimal amount of reasoning tokens such that the probability of producing a correct solution is maximized.<n>We then demonstrate an implication of these findings: being able to predict the optimal number of reasoning tokens for new problems and filtering out non-optimal length answers results in consistent accuracy improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:45:58Z)
• Generalization of Neural Combinatorial Solvers Through the Lens of Adversarial Robustness [68.97830259849086]
  Most datasets only capture a simpler subproblem and likely suffer from spurious features. We study adversarial robustness - a local generalization property - to reveal hard, model-specific instances and spurious features. Unlike in other applications, where perturbation models are designed around subjective notions of imperceptibility, our perturbation models are efficient and sound. Surprisingly, with such perturbations, a sufficiently expressive neural solver does not suffer from the limitations of the accuracy-robustness trade-off common in supervised learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T07:28:11Z)

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.