LPDS: Evaluating LLM Robustness Through Logic-Preserving Difficulty Scaling

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15393v1
• Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 20:26:59 GMT
• Title: LPDS: Evaluating LLM Robustness Through Logic-Preserving Difficulty Scaling
• Abstract summary: We introduce logic-state difficulty (LPDS) to quantifies the difficulty of a problem variation.<n>We show that as difficulty increases, performance declines and errors in the models' reasoning are more pronounced.
• Score: 24.184930329823114
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to perform tasks with minimal human oversight, it is crucial that these models operate robustly. In particular, a model that can solve a given problem should not fail simply because certain entities$\unicode{x2013}$such as names, numbers, or other contextual details$\unicode{x2013}$have changed while the underlying problem logic remains the same. Prior work suggests that current LLMs still struggle with this form of robustness: they often succeed on some variations of a problem but fail on others. However, existing evaluations often lack a systematic way to identify which logic-preserving variations are most likely to induce failure. Instead, they typically test a random subset of allowable variations, which can overstate robustness. To address this gap, we introduce logic-preserving difficulty scaling (LPDS), a framework that (i) quantifies the difficulty of a problem variation and (ii) systematically searches the space of allowable variations to find those that maximize difficulty and expose failures. We show that as difficulty increases, performance declines and errors in the models' reasoning chains become more pronounced. We further demonstrate that LPDS efficiently finds difficult problem variations for a model, resulting in performance drops up to 5 times larger compared to random sampling. Finally, we show that fine-tuning on more difficult variations leads to more consistent robustness gains than training on easier ones.

Related papers

• How Well Do LLMs Perform on the Simplest Long-Chain Reasoning Tasks: An Empirical Study on the Equivalence Class Problem [5.006638589584725]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' performance on the simplest yet long-chain reasoning task.<n>Non-reasoning models fail ECP, while reasoning models are significantly better but still struggle to completely solve this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T19:31:43Z)
• LLMs Encode Their Failures: Predicting Success from Pre-Generation Activations [5.275682987885503]
  We train linear probes on pre-generation activations to predict policy-specific success on math and coding tasks.<n>We show that models encode a model-specific notion of difficulty that is distinct from human difficulty.<n>We demonstrate that routing queries across a pool of models can exceed the best-performing model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T15:57:00Z)
• Staying in the Sweet Spot: Responsive Reasoning Evolution via Capability-Adaptive Hint Scaffolding [59.60915947702282]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has achieved remarkable success in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Existing RLVR methods often suffer from exploration inefficiency due to mismatches between the training data's difficulty and the model's capability.<n>We propose SEELE, a novel supervision-aided RLVR framework that dynamically adjusts problem difficulty to stay within the high-efficiency region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:36:21Z)
• 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)
• Frontier LLMs Still Struggle with Simple Reasoning Tasks [53.497499123166804]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T22:22:49Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Always Solve Easy Problems if They Can Solve Harder Ones? [65.43882564649721]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, but still suffer from inconsistency issues. We develop the ConsisEval benchmark, where each entry comprises a pair of questions with a strict order of difficulty. We analyze the potential for improvement in consistency by relative consistency score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T17:25:47Z)

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.