From 0-Order Selection to 2-Order Judgment: Combinatorial Hardening Exposes Compositional Failures in Frontier LLMs
Hanmeng Liu, Shichao Weng, Xiulai Liu, Zhicai Zhang, Anli Yan, Xiaozhang Liu
No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Multiple-choice reasoning benchmarks face dual challenges: rapid saturation from advancing models and data contamination that undermines static evaluations. Ad-hoc hardening methods (paraphrasing, perturbation) attempt to increase difficulty but sacrifice logical validity for surface complexity, falling short to challenge advanced reasoning models. We present LogiHard, a formal framework that deterministically transf ...
orms 0-order selection into 2-order logical judgment, which significantly increases the thinking overhead and reasoning steps. The framework integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) for computerized adaptive testing (CAT), enabling precise difficulty control with fewer questions than static benchmarks. We instantiate LogiHard-2k, a logical reasoning dataset constructed by cognitively ranking high-stakes examination questions via 9-dimensional analysis of model thinking traces, followed by combinatorial transformation of high-difficulty items. Evaluation across twelve state-of-the-art models reveals an accuracy degradation ranging from 31% to 56% on combinatorially hardened questions. LLMs suffer from the multi-select failure and early exit bias, which are not shared by human testees. Zero-shot transfer to MMLU demonstrates 47% accuracy degradation (89.84% to 42.86%), confirming applicability across domains with provable validity preservation. The consistent aggregate degeneration is domain-agnostic and stems not from knowledge deficits but from a combinatorial reasoning gap, reflecting a training-induced completeness-verification deficit.
Results & Benchmarks
Some benchmark signal exists in the extracted evidence, but it is not structured strongly enough yet for a confident benchmark decision.
Multiple-choice reasoning benchmarks face dual challenges: rapid saturation from advancing models and data contamination that undermines static evaluations.
Implementation Evidence Summary
This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
Reproduction Risks
- No maintained paper-verified implementation is currently available
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 75/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
- Start with framework-native implementations (e.g. PyTorch optimizer module, Optax, or Transformers training loops).
- Replicate the paper ablation settings first, then compare against modern baselines.
Reproduction readiness
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Reasoning / puzzle solving
Methods
QUBO / Combinatorial optimization
Domains
None detected
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.