Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

CoreThink: A Symbolic Reasoning Layer to reason over Long Horizon Tasks with LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A symbolic layer claims to give any LLM a 30–60% reasoning boost.

desk verdict Unverifiable company tech report; the 30-60% uplift is contradicted by its own table, and no fixed scaffold exists to attribute gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00971 v2 pith:FCJDZUFX submitted 2025-08-31 cs.AI

Jay Vaghasiya , Omkar Ghugarkar , Vishvesh Bhat , Vipul Dholaria , Julian McAuley This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords reasoninglayerneurosymbolicAIGeneralSymbolicstoolcallingcodegenerationplanninglong-horizontasksLLM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that current methods for improving LLM reasoning—test-time scaling, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards—will eventually hit diminishing returns. It proposes a model-agnostic "Reasoning Layer" called CoreThink, built on a method named General Symbolics, that sits on top of any base model and requires no training. The paper reports that this layer raises base-model accuracy by 30–60% across tool-calling, code generation, and planning benchmarks, including state-of-the-art scores on LiveCodeBench, SWE-Bench Lite, IF-Evals, and ARC-AGI-2. The report is high-level: the realized system is a neurosymbolic scaffold that uses symbolic structure to orchestrate smaller LLMs, while the long-term goal is a pure natural-language reasoning engine. If correct, the claim matters because it points to performance gains from structure rather than scale.

What carries the argument

The General Symbolics Reasoning (GSR) framework is the central object: a reasoning layer that works in natural language, preserving semantics without converting input into formal logic or embeddings. The concrete machinery carrying the argument is a neurosymbolic scaffold—a symbolic controller plans and composes steps, while LLMs handle parsing and transformation at each step. This scaffold provides compositional structure and interpretable reasoning traces, and it is what the reported benchmark results are based on.

What would settle it

Pre-register one fixed base model and one frozen CoreThink scaffold, then run all seven benchmarks without further adjustment; if the reported 30–60% relative uplift does not reproduce, the central claim fails. A second check: run the same scaffold on a brand-new reasoning benchmark released after the paper and compare against the unassisted base model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a symbolic reasoning layer can be added to any LLM to produce large, training-free reasoning gains. The paper reports CoreThink achieving 66.66% on LiveCodeBench v6, 89% on Instruction-Following Evals, 24.4% on ARC-AGI-2, and 62.3% on SWE-Bench Lite, with the layer described as operating natively in natural language and avoiding translation into formal logic or vector embeddings. The current implementation is a neurosymbolic scaffold that combines deterministic symbolic steps (such as object detection, pattern intersection, and tool orchestration) with LLM calls for parsing and transformation. The authors present this as a practical step toward an idealized General

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the reported benchmark numbers all come from one stable, well-specified CoreThink system, but the paper reports the best score per benchmark across different base models and notes that an API change to one base model shifted ARC-AGI-2 from 24.4% to 22.1%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reasoning layer is stable, any LLM user could gain 30–60% relative accuracy on reasoning tasks without retraining, a step change in the cost of deploying better reasoning.
  • Because the layer is model-agnostic, enterprises could stack CoreThink on top of whichever model they already use, rather than migrating to larger or specialized models.
  • The ARC-AGI-2 result suggests that a scaffold combining deterministic perception, symbolic pattern synthesis, and LLM execution can outperform pure LLM reasoning on few-shot abstraction puzzles.
  • The SWE-Bench Lite result implies that agentic coding performance depends on the planning structure around the model, not only on the model's parametric knowledge.
  • Since the layer requires no training, its gains would not be tied to the model's training data, potentially offering robustness to benchmark contamination.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's best-score selection across different base models means the 30–60% figure describes an upper envelope rather than a single fixed configuration; a systematic test with one base model on all benchmarks would settle whether the layer, not the base model, is doing the work.
  • If the GSR ideal of pure natural-language reasoning is realized, it would offer a different kind of explainability: the reasoning trace itself is the explanation, without needing to interpret internal model representations.
  • The ARC-AGI-2 pipeline could be adapted to other visual reasoning benchmarks by swapping the deterministic perception stage and the symbolic rule vocabulary.
  • The scaffold approach suggests a research direction of 'reasoning architecture as software', where symbolic structure is an interchangeable component rather than an emergent property of trained weights.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CoreThink, a 'Reasoning Layer' based on a proposed General Symbolics Reasoning (GSR) framework, and claims that it provides a training-free, model-agnostic accuracy uplift of 30–60% across tool-calling, code generation, and planning benchmarks. The authors report state-of-the-art scores including 66.66% on LiveCodeBench v6, 89% on IF-Evals, 24.4% on ARC-AGI-2, and 62.3% on SWE-Bench Lite. The GSR framework is described only at the level of architectural desiderata; the actual evaluated system is a neurosymbolic scaffold that composes smaller LLMs. Evaluation results are self-reported, with a different base model selected per benchmark, no released code, prompts, seeds, or logs, and a full internal ablation explicitly deferred to future work.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, a training-free symbolic reasoning layer producing large, consistent gains across diverse reasoning benchmarks would be a significant contribution with clear practical impact. The paper also addresses important limitations of chain-of-thought and formal-logic approaches. However, the evidence as presented does not support the central claims: the evaluation protocol selects the best scores from different base-model configurations, the ARC-AGI-2 result is shown to be unstable and heavily engineered, and the reported uplifts in Table 8 are inconsistent with the abstract's 30–60% range. The paper therefore currently functions as a technical white paper rather than a verifiable scientific report.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6, Table 8; Abstract] The central claim of a 30–60% accuracy uplift is not supported by the reported protocol. §6 states 'we report the best scores in this section' and assigns a different base model to each benchmark. Table 8's Uplift column therefore mixes base-model choices and does not control for scaffold version, prompt template, or run-to-run selection. Several rows contradict the headline range: BIRD-CRITIC +10.89%, SWE-Bench Lite +9.9%, and IF-Evals +10.7% are far below 30–60%, while BFCL and Tau-bench show >100% relative gains with different base models. Without a fixed configuration or ablation, gains cannot be attributed to CoreThink.
  2. [§6.3, Appendix B] The ARC-AGI-2 headline is unstable and benchmark-specific. §6.3 reports that the 24.4% result fell to 22.1% after an xAI Grok-4 API change, and Appendix B describes a custom four-stage pipeline with a fixed 23-operation taxonomy, self-consistency sampling, confidence pruning, grid downscaling, and fallback to base Grok-4. These are exactly the free parameters that make the score a property of the engineered pipeline, not of a general model-agnostic reasoning layer. Any SOTA claim based on this number is time- and implementation-dependent.
  3. [§8.1] The only 'ablation' compares CoreThink+base-model against unaugmented frontier models; the authors explicitly defer 'a full internal ablation' to future work. Thus there is no evidence for the abstract's claim that the layer provides a 'pure performance uplift' or that accuracy is 'never negatively impacted.' These claims require component-level ablation and a fixed base-model protocol, neither of which is supplied.
  4. [§5, §6, Appendices A–B] No code, prompts, seeds, evaluation harnesses, or logs are released, and the GSR description in §5 is a set of architectural desiderata rather than a formal or algorithmic specification. The only concrete implementation details are benchmark-specific appendixes (A and B). The paper therefore does not meet the reproducibility bar needed to substantiate SOTA or general-uplift claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5] Figure 5 is used twice (once in §6.2 and once in §8.1); renumber the figures.
  2. [Abstract; Figure 3] Typo in the abstract: 'onLivecodebench' should be 'on LiveCodebench'. Figure 3's caption begins with 'T ask/T urn' instead of 'Task/Turn'.
  3. [Table 8] The table is labeled 'Ablation Study' but contains no ablation; rename it to 'Comparison' or include actual component ablations.
  4. [§8 vs. Abstract/Conclusion] The text inconsistently says 'seven critical benchmarks' (Abstract, Conclusion) and 'eight diverse tasks' (§8). Clarify the exact benchmark count.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper contains no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs; its selection and attribution issues are not circularity.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical technical report, not a derivation. CoreThink's 'General Symbolics' framework is described at a high level, and Section 5 explicitly states that all reported results come from a neurosymbolic implementation that 'orchestrate[s] and compose[s] smaller, efficient Large Language Models'—not from a mathematical formalism that could be self-definitional. There are no equations in which an output is defined in terms of an input, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The nearest concerns are experimental-attribution issues: Section 6 says 'we report the best scores in this section' and assigns a different base model per benchmark, and Section 6.3 reports an ARC-AGI-2 drop from 24.4% to 22.1% after a Grok-4 API change. Section 8.1 also defers a true internal ablation to future work. These are genuine threats to the claim that the observed uplifts are caused by a fixed CoreThink scaffold, but they are not circularity: the reported benchmark numbers are external measurements, not consequences of the paper's definitions. The paper does not derive its SOTA claims from its own assumptions; it asserts them from benchmark runs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim depends not on derived equations but on a series of domain assumptions about natural language, benchmark validity, and attribution. The free parameters listed are the benchmark configuration choices and ARC-AGI-2 pipeline hyperparameters that are researcher-chosen and unreported. No independent evidence is provided for the new entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-benchmark base model selection = GPT-OSS-120B (BFCL), DeepSeek-V3 (Tau-bench), Claude-4-Sonnet/GPT-OSS (LCB), DeepSeek-R1 (BIRD), Qwen3/Claude (IF-Evals)
    Section 6 lists a different base model per benchmark; the reported uplift depends on picking the best base model for each task, which is a researcher-chosen configuration.
  • ARC-AGI-2 atomic operation taxonomy size = 23
    Appendix B defines 23 atomic operations (translate, reflect, cavity_fill, etc.) chosen by hand to describe transformations; the pattern detection step is constrained by this vocabulary.
  • ARC-AGI-2 pattern confidence threshold = unspecified
    Appendix B Stage 3: 'Low-confidence or inconsistent patterns are discarded via self-consistency heuristics'; the threshold is not reported and directly affects the final rule set.
  • ARC-AGI-2 self-consistency sample count = unspecified
    Appendix B Stage 4: 'The model generates multiple samples' and 'each test output is resolved by majority vote per pixel'. The number of samples is not given; accuracy depends on it.
  • ARC-AGI-2 grid downscaling = not specified
    Appendix B 'Resolution heuristics: Downscaling grids improved accuracy but limited generalization'; no specific scale is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Natural language is more expressive and comprehensive than formal logic, and translating NL into vectors or formal logic causes representational loss.
    Section 5, points 1 and 4. The entire GSR premise depends on this unproven claim; no formal or empirical evidence is given.
  • domain assumption The benchmark scores are measured with the authors' own evaluation setup and are comparable to published baselines.
    Section 6. Baselines like o4-mini, Gemini, Claude are self-reported numbers from the paper's tables, not independently re-run or linked to leaderboards.
  • domain assumption The symbolic scaffold does not leak benchmark information or rely on contamination.
    No contamination analysis is provided; LiveCodeBench and ARC-AGI-2 are meant to be contamination-free, but the paper does not show that CoreThink's prompts avoid training data leakage.
  • domain assumption The uplift is due to the CoreThink layer rather than the choice of base model or prompt template.
    Section 8.1's 'ablation' compares CoreThink+a base model against the base model without CoreThink, but the exact prompting and orchestration changes are not isolated.
invented entities (3)
  • General Symbolics (GSR)
    purpose: A claimed new reasoning paradigm that operates entirely in natural language without representational translation.
    No formal definition, implementation, or falsifiable prediction is given; only self-reported benchmark numbers. No code or external artifacts.
  • CoreThink Reasoning Layer
    purpose: A model-agnostic wrapper that is claimed to improve any LLM's reasoning without training.
    No artifacts released; the layer's internal orchestration is not specified. The claim 'never negatively impacted' is absolute and unsubstantiated.
  • ARC-AGI NS Flow
    purpose: Four-stage neuro-symbolic pipeline for ARC-AGI-2 (object detection, LLM pattern detection, pattern intersection, self-consistent solving).
    Described in Appendix B but no code, thresholds, or sample counts are provided; the reported 24.4% is self-measured and unstable (22.1% on re-run).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoreThink: A Symbolic Reasoning Layer to reason over Long Horizon Tasks with LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCJDZUFX

@misc{pith2026250900971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoreThink: A Symbolic Reasoning Layer to reason over Long Horizon Tasks with LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCJDZUFX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00971}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce CoreThink, a state-of-the-art Reasoning Layer built upon a novel reasoning method called General Symbolics. This approach diverges from reasoning paradigms such as test-time scaling, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). CoreThink General Symbolic Reasoner (GSR) is specifically structured around three key use cases: tool-calling, code generation, and planning, demonstrating exemplary performance across a total of seven benchmarks in their respective areas. Notably, we are achieving SOTA scores of 66.66% on Livecodebench v6, 89% on Instruction-Following Evals, and 24.4% on ARC-AGI-2. We also present an agentic coding IDE, developed using the principles of General Symbolics, which achieves a state-of-the-art accuracy of 62.3% on SWE-Bench Lite. We are able to achieve these improvements without any fine-tuning or training costs. Our Reasoning Layer is designed to provide a pure performance uplift, ensuring that a model's accuracy on reasoning tasks is never negatively impacted. We argue that incumbent methods will eventually lead to diminishing returns in LLM performance, necessitating the development of new reasoning techniques. This technical report details our approach at a high level and the availability of the CoreThink models for reasoning-intensive use cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00971 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evaluation of CoreThink and baseline models across three key capability areas: Tool-Calling, Code [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparative Performance Analysis of Large Language Models. The graph illustrates the performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure illustrates how the NS agent enhances a base model’s (Sonnet 4) ability to plan and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure compares two AI agents’ solutions to a bug in scikit-learn’s ‘ColumnTransformer‘. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure illustrates how CoreThink transforms a base model’s (Sonnet 4) ability to solve complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Side-by-side comparison of CoreThink and baseline model performance across BFCL v3, Taubench [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful

    Iván Arcuschin et al. “Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful”. In: (2025). arXiv: 2503.08679 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08679

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Chain-of-Thought Is Not Explainability

    K. Barez and A. Singh. “Chain-of-Thought Is Not Explainability”. In:Proc. 2025 Conference on AI Governance. AIGI, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Post-Hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts

    Sebastian Bordt et al. “Post-Hoc Explanations Fail in Adversarial Contexts”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10295 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Louisa Canepa, Sonit Singh, and Arcot Sowmya.Visual Question Answering in the Medical Domain

    work page

  5. [5]

    InternalBiasinReasoningModelsleadstoOverthinking

    RenfeiDang,ShujianHuang,andJiajunChen.“InternalBiasinReasoningModelsleadstoOverthinking”. In: (2025). arXiv:2505.16448 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16448. 17

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Hubert L. Dreyfus. Mind over Machine. 1986

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Does Thinking More always Help? Understanding Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning Models

    Soumya Suvra Ghosal et al. “Does Thinking More always Help? Understanding Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning Models”. In: (2025). arXiv:2506.04210 [cs.AI] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506. 04210

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Neurosymbolic AI and its Taxonomy: a survey

    Wandemberg Gibaut et al. “Neurosymbolic AI and its Taxonomy: a survey”. In: (2023).doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV.2305.08876. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08876

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.08876 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A Study on Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Healthcare Perspectives

    Delower Hossain and Jake Y Chen. “A Study on Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Healthcare Perspectives”. In: (2025). arXiv:2503.18213 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18213

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code

    Naman Jain et al. “LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code”. In: (2024). arXiv:2403.07974 [cs.SE]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07974

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?

    Carlos E. Jimenez et al. “SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?” In: (2024). arXiv: 2310.06770 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06770

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Grounding and Evaluation for Large Language Models: Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned (Survey)

    Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Mehrnoosh Sameki, and Ankur Taly. “Grounding and Evaluation for Large Language Models: Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned (Survey)”. In: (Aug. 2024), pp. 6523–6533. doi: 10.1145/3637528.3671467. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671467

    2024

  5. [13]

    Fast and Accurate Task Planning using Neuro-Symbolic Language Models and Multi-level Goal Decomposition

    Minseo Kwon, Yaesol Kim, and Young J. Kim. “Fast and Accurate Task Planning using Neuro-Symbolic Language Models and Multi-level Goal Decomposition”. In: 2025. arXiv:2409.19250 [cs.RO]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19250

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    AI Reasoning in Deep Learning Era: From Symbolic AI to Neural–Symbolic AI

    B. Liang. “AI Reasoning in Deep Learning Era: From Symbolic AI to Neural–Symbolic AI”. In: Mathematics 13.11 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Surveying neuro-symbolic approaches for reliable artificial intelligence of things

    Zhen Lu et al. “Surveying neuro-symbolic approaches for reliable artificial intelligence of things”. In: Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments10 (2024), pp. 257–279.doi: 10.1007/s40860-024-00231- 1

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Meincke and H

    J. Meincke and H. Li.Performance and Latency Tradeoffs of Chain-of-Thought Prompting. Tech. rep. Wharton Generative AI Labs, June 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Iman Mirzadeh et al. “GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models”. In: (2025). arXiv:2410.05229 [cs.LG] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.05229

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A review of neuro-symbolic AI integrating reasoning and learning

    U. Nawaz. “A review of neuro-symbolic AI integrating reasoning and learning”. In:Elsevier (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    The Illusion of the Illusion of Thinking: A Comment on Shojaee et al

    Claude Opus and Andrew Lawsen. “The Illusion of the Illusion of Thinking: A Comment on Shojaee et al.” In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09250(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    PLAN-TUNING: Post-Training Language Models to Learn Step-by-Step Planning for Complex Problem Solving

    Mihir Parmar et al. “PLAN-TUNING: Post-Training Language Models to Learn Step-by-Step Planning for Complex Problem Solving”. In: (2025). arXiv:2507.07495 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2507.07495

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL): From Tool Use to Agentic Evaluation of Large Language Models

    Shishir G Patil et al. “The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL): From Tool Use to Agentic Evaluation of Large Language Models”. In:Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

  14. [22]

    Transparent AI: The Case for Interpretability and Explainability

    Dhanesh Ramachandram et al. “Transparent AI: The Case for Interpretability and Explainability”. In: (2025). arXiv: 2507.23535 [cs.LG]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23535

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Internal Study on Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

    Anthropic Research. Internal Study on Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness. Tech. rep. Anthropic, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    The Case Against Explainability

    Hofit Wasserman Rozen, Niva Elkin-Koren, and Ran Gilad-Bachrach. “The Case Against Explainability”. In: (2023). arXiv:2305.12167 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12167

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity

    Parshin Shojaee et al. “The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity”. In: (2025). arXiv:2506.06941 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06941

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Medical Visual Question Answering with Chain-of-Thought Explanations

    J. Smith and R. Gomez. “Medical Visual Question Answering with Chain-of-Thought Explanations”. In: MDPI Journal of Healthcare AI2.1 (2024), pp. 45–60. 18

    2024

  19. [27]

    Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planning

    Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, and Subbarao Kambhampati. “Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planning”. In: (2025). arXiv:2405.04776 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2405.04776

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jinyan Su et al.Between Underthinking and Overthinking: An Empirical Study of Reasoning Length and correctness in LLMs. 2025. arXiv:2505.00127 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.00127

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Evals: An Extensible Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models

    OpenAI Team. “Evals: An Extensible Framework for Evaluating Large Language Models”. In: (2024). Available athttps://github.com/openai/evals

    2024

  22. [30]

    Language Models Don’t Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting

    Miles Turpin et al. “Language Models Don’t Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting”. In: (2023). arXiv:2305.04388 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2305.04388

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    LLMs Still Can’t Plan; Can LRMs? A Preliminary Evaluation of OpenAI’s o1 on PlanBench

    Karthik Valmeekam, Kaya Stechly, and Subbarao Kambhampati. “LLMs Still Can’t Plan; Can LRMs? A Preliminary Evaluation of OpenAI’s o1 on PlanBench”. In: (2024). arXiv:2409.13373 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13373

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Towards Efficient Neuro-Symbolic AI: From Workload Characterization to Hardware Architecture

    Zishen Wan et al. “Towards Efficient Neuro-Symbolic AI: From Workload Characterization to Hardware Architecture”. In: (2024). arXiv:2409.13153 [cs.AR]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13153

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Jason Wei et al. “Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models”. In: 2023. arXiv: 2201.11903 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. “Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models”. In: (2025). arXiv:2401.11817 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2401.11817

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang et al. “Qwen3 Technical Report”. In: (2025). arXiv:2505 . 09388 [cs.CL]. url: https : //arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains

    Shunyu Yao et al. “τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains”. In: (2024). arXiv: 2406.12045 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12045

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Neuro-Symbolic AI: Explainability, Challenges, and Future Trends

    Xin Zhang and Victor S. Sheng. “Neuro-Symbolic AI: Explainability, Challenges, and Future Trends”. In: (2024). arXiv:2411.04383 [cs.AI]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04383

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    my_function

    Haoran Zhao et al.Let LLMs Break Free from Overthinking via Self-Braking Tuning. 2025. arXiv: 2505.14604 [cs.CL]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14604. 19 A Implementation Details and Development Environment (for Agen- tic IDE) To build our agentic coding IDE, we leveraged ke...

    2025

  31. [2023]

    url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11080

    arXiv: 2309.11080 [cs.CV]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11080

    arXiv

  32. [2025]

    url: https://openreview.net/forum?id=2GmDdhBdDk

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.