Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research introduces the Tasks over Application Manuals (TAM) benchmark to expose critical gaps in large language models' ability to execute long-horizon, rule-based procedures found in real-world domains like medical coding and legal sentencing. Evaluations on GPT-5 reveal that current reasoning capabilities are significantly overstated by existing short-horizon benchmarks, with exact-match performance remaining below 16% for complex manual-following tasks. The findings underscore the urgent need for more rigorous testing frameworks to ensure reliability before deploying LLMs in high-stakes procedural environments.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Tasks over Application Manuals: Revealing Gaps in Long-Horizon Procedural Reasoning for Language Models

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2609.13005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks, and recent benchmarks suggest that they are increasingly adept at multi-hop reasoning. However, these benchmarks are typically short-horizon, requiring only a small number of retrieval or inference steps, and provide limited evidence of reliability on real-world tasks that involve following manuals spanning hundreds of pages with complex, interdependent guidelines. In this paper, we introduce Tasks over Application Manuals (TAM), a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon procedural reasoning. We construct TAM by curating real-world tasks from two domains: ICD-10-CM clinical coding (mapping medical conditions to diagnostic codes) and U.S. federal sentencing (computing crime sentencing guideline outcomes, specifically offense levels), with human-validated labels. Each task requires following an authoritative manual with tens of thousands of rules and executing a sequence of interdependent steps across different sections to produce an exact answer. We evaluate general-purpose prompting approaches, including retrieval-augmented generation, ReAct-style prompting, and an agent-harness baseline on GPT-5, and find that the best exact-match performance remains extremely low: 1% on ICD-10-CM coding and 15.5% on sentencing tasks. These results show that current benchmarks may overestimate LLM reasoning ability and miss a key challenge: reliably following long, rule-based procedures. The complete TAM data and code are publicly available.

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks, and recent benchmarks suggest that they are increasingly adept at multi-hop reasoning. However, these benchmarks are typically short-horizon, requiring only a small number of retrieval or inference steps, and provide limited evidence of reliability on real-world tasks that involve following manuals spanning hundreds of pages with complex, interdependent guidelines. In this paper, we introduce Tasks over Application Manuals (TAM), a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon procedural reasoning. We construct TAM by curating real-world tasks from two domains: ICD-10-CM clinical coding (mapping medical conditions to diagnostic codes) and U.S. federal sentencing (computing crime sentencing guideline outcomes, specifically offense levels), with human-validated labels. Each task requires following an authoritative manual with tens of thousands of rules and executing a sequence of interdependent steps across different sections to produce an exact answer. We evaluate general-purpose prompting approaches, including retrieval-augmented generation, ReAct-style prompting, and an agent-harness baseline on GPT-5, and find that the best exact-match performance remains extremely low: 1% on ICD-10-CM coding and 15.5% on sentencing tasks. These results show that current benchmarks may overestimate LLM reasoning ability and miss a key challenge: reliably following long, rule-based procedures. The complete TAM data and code are publicly available.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.13005 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.13005v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13005 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

https://doi.org/10.1145/3799682.3841039 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources

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 · 317 words

Related coverage