Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

L0-Reasoning Bench: Evaluating Procedural Correctness in Language Models via Simple Program Execution

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.22832 v2 pith:LYCF5MGK submitted 2025-03-28 cs.PL cs.CL

L0-Reasoning Bench: Evaluating Procedural Correctness in Language Models via Simple Program Execution

classification cs.PL cs.CL
keywords modelsreasoningstepscorrectnessl0-benchabilitynumbersimple
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Complex reasoning tasks often rely on the ability to consistently and accurately apply simple rules across incremental steps, a foundational capability which we term "level-0" reasoning. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce L0-Bench, a language model benchmark for testing procedural correctness -- the ability to generate correct reasoning processes, complementing existing benchmarks that primarily focus on outcome correctness. Given synthetic Python functions with simple operations, L0-Bench grades models on their ability to generate step-by-step, error-free execution traces. The synthetic nature of L0-Bench enables systematic and scalable generation of test programs along various axes (e.g., number of trace steps). We evaluate a diverse array of recent closed-source and open-weight models on a baseline test set. All models exhibit degradation as the number of target trace steps increases, while larger models and reasoning-enhanced models better maintain correctness over multiple steps. Additionally, we use L0-Bench to explore test-time scaling along three dimensions: input context length, number of solutions for majority voting, and inference steps. Our results suggest substantial room to improve "level-0" reasoning and potential directions to build more reliable reasoning systems.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Evaluating Code Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models Under Real-World Settings

    cs.SE 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new dataset and nine-metric majority-vote procedure show that existing code-reasoning benchmarks are dominated by lower-complexity problems that do not reflect real-world code.