analiza aiqbench
This paper introduces a competence-based evaluation framework to address the limitations of single-accuracy benchmarks in measuring large language models' logical reasoning generalization. By testing whether models consistently apply specific competencies across varying problem formulations, the study reveals that even advanced GPT and Qwen models fail to maintain reliability when complexity scales or linguistic presentations change. The proposed diagnostic protocol offers a more rigorous standard for assessing true reasoning capacity beyond superficial performance metrics.
Competence-Based Evaluation of Logical Reasoning in Large Language Models
arXiv:2610.22894v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have brought impressive performance across diverse tasks; however, shortcomings remain in logical reasoning, including inconsistencies under linguistic variation. To improve the reasoning capacity of LLMs, we must be able to accurately measure their reasoning capacity. Current benchmarks primarily report single accuracy numbers on selected reasoning tasks. Such a performance-based evaluation methodology says little about a model's generalization capacity in reasoning. To address this limitation, we argue for a different evaluation paradigm, called competence-based evaluation (CBE), which tests whether models reliably apply the same competence across a family of problems. A parameterized generator scales complexity while keeping the required competence fixed, and matched answer-preserving presentations test correctness beyond one formulation. We instantiate CBE on elementary ordering tasks, scaling input size while varying presentations of the same ordering rule. Across six GPT and Qwen models, performance is reasonably good over bounded complexity ranges, but even strong models fail the competence condition across the tested family. Chain-of-thought and GRPO extend strong performance without resolving all tested failures; supervised LoRA shows little held-out transfer. CBE provides diagnostic profiles and an evaluation protocol that can grow with future models.
Abstract:Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have brought impressive performance across diverse tasks; however, shortcomings remain in logical reasoning, including inconsistencies under linguistic variation. To improve the reasoning capacity of LLMs, we must be able to accurately measure their reasoning capacity. Current benchmarks primarily report single accuracy numbers on selected reasoning tasks. Such a performance-based evaluation methodology says little about a model's generalization capacity in reasoning. To address this limitation, we argue for a different evaluation paradigm, called competence-based evaluation (CBE), which tests whether models reliably apply the same competence across a family of problems. A parameterized generator scales complexity while keeping the required competence fixed, and matched answer-preserving presentations test correctness beyond one formulation. We instantiate CBE on elementary ordering tasks, scaling input size while varying presentations of the same ordering rule. Across six GPT and Qwen models, performance is reasonably good over bounded complexity ranges, but even strong models fail the competence condition across the tested family. Chain-of-thought and GRPO extend strong performance without resolving all tested failures; supervised LoRA shows little held-out transfer. CBE provides diagnostic profiles and an evaluation protocol that can grow with future models.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.22894 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.22894v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22894 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 292 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · 17 oct. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026