aiqbench analysis
CombEval introduces a dynamic benchmark using typed Cofola specifications to rigorously test large language models on combinatorial counting tasks with solver-verified answers. The evaluation of 11 models reveals persistent brittleness regarding ordered objects, indistinguishable elements, and nested dependencies, offering a diagnostic tool for understanding specific reasoning failure modes. This work advances the field by moving beyond static datasets to systematically vary problem complexity and constraint depth.
CombEval: A Framework for Evaluating Combinatorial Counting in Large Language Models
arXiv:2606.19788v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present CombEval, a dynamic benchmark for evaluating combinatorial counting in large language models. CombEval represents each problem as a typed Cofola specification over entities, combinatorial objects, object dependencies, and constraints, enabling controlled generation of natural-language counting problems with exact solver-verified answers. Unlike static collections, CombEval supports systematic variation of object type, entity scale, constraint count, and reasoning depth. We evaluate 11 LLMs under direct and code-augmented settings and find that models remain brittle on ordered objects, indistinguishable elements, relatively positional constraints, and nested object dependencies. Error analysis further identifies failures in constraint interpretation and counting principles. CombEval provides a diagnostic testbed for studying when and why LLMs fail at combinatorial reasoning. The code and generated benchmark suites are publicly available at https://github.com/YuxuZhou-CN/combination-problem-generation.
Abstract:We present CombEval, a dynamic benchmark for evaluating combinatorial counting in large language models. CombEval represents each problem as a typed Cofola specification over entities, combinatorial objects, object dependencies, and constraints, enabling controlled generation of natural-language counting problems with exact solver-verified answers. Unlike static collections, CombEval supports systematic variation of object type, entity scale, constraint count, and reasoning depth. We evaluate 11 LLMs under direct and code-augmented settings and find that models remain brittle on ordered objects, indistinguishable elements, relatively positional constraints, and nested object dependencies. Error analysis further identifies failures in constraint interpretation and counting principles. CombEval provides a diagnostic testbed for studying when and why LLMs fail at combinatorial reasoning. The code and generated benchmark suites are publicly available at this https URL.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.19788 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.19788v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.19788 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 221 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Introducing Instella-MoE: A State-of-the-Art Fully Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Model
AMD · Jul 24, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026