Jonas Rohweder

Donald Ye, Max Loffgren, Om Kotadia et al.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations are widely used to interpret how language models solve complex problems, yet it remains unclear whether these step-by-step explanations reflect how the model actually reaches its answer, or merely post-hoc justifications. We propose Normalized Logit Difference Decay (NLDD), a metric that measures whether individual reasoning steps are faithful to the model's decision-making process. Our approach corrupts individual reasoning steps from the explanation and measures how much the model's confidence in its answer drops, to determine if a step is truly important. By standardizing these measurements, NLDD enables rigorous cross-model comparison across different architectures. Testing three model families across syntactic, logical, and arithmetic tasks, we discover a consistent Reasoning Horizon (k*) at 70--85% of chain length, beyond which reasoning tokens have little or negative effect on the final answer. We also find that models can encode correct internal representations while completely failing the task. These results show that accuracy alone does not reveal whether a model actually reasons through its chain. NLDD offers a way to measure when CoT matters.

Adhyayan Veer Singh, Aaron Shen, Brian Law et al.

Correctness alone is insufficient: LLM-generated programs frequently satisfy unit tests while violating contest time or memory budgets. We present SwiftSolve, a complexity-aware multi-agent system for competitive programming that couples algorithmic planning with empirical profiling and complexity-guided repair. We frame competitive programming as a software environment where specialized agents act as programmers, each assuming roles such as planning, coding, profiling, and complexity analysis. A Planner proposes an algorithmic sketch; a deterministic Static Pruner filters high-risk plans; a Coder emits ISO C++17; a Profiler compiles and executes candidates on a fixed input-size schedule to record wall time and peak memory; and a Complexity Analyst fits log-log growth (s, R2) with an LLM fallback to assign a complexity class and dispatch targeted patches to either the Planner or Coder. Agents communicate via typed, versioned JSON; a controller enforces iteration caps and diminishing returns stopping. Evaluated on 26 problems (16 BigO, 10 Codeforces Div. 2) in a POSIX sandbox (2 s / 256-512 MB), SwiftSolve attains pass@1 = 61.54% (16/26) on the first attempt and Solved@<=3 = 80.77% with marginal latency change (mean 11.96 s to 12.66 s per attempt). Aggregate run-level success is 73.08% at 12.40 s mean. Failures are predominantly resource-bound, indicating inefficiency rather than logic errors. Against Claude Opus 4, SwiftSolve improves run-level success (73.1% vs 52.6%) at approximately 2x runtime overhead (12.4 s vs 6.8 s). Beyond correctness (pass@k), we report efficiency metrics (eff@k for runtime and memory, incidence of TLE or MLE, and complexity fit accuracy on BigO), demonstrating that profiling and complexity-guided replanning reduce inefficiency while preserving accuracy.