Zena Al-Khalili

h-index10
2papers

2 Papers

AIOct 14, 2025Code
PricingLogic: Evaluating LLMs Reasoning on Complex Tourism Pricing Tasks

Yunuo Liu, Dawei Zhu, Zena Al-Khalili et al.

We present PricingLogic, the first benchmark that probes whether Large Language Models(LLMs) can reliably automate tourism-related prices when multiple, overlapping fare rules apply. Travel agencies are eager to offload this error-prone task onto AI systems; however, deploying LLMs without verified reliability could result in significant financial losses and erode customer trust. PricingLogic comprises 300 natural-language questions based on booking requests derived from 42 real-world pricing policies, spanning two levels of difficulty: (i) basic customer-type pricing and (ii)bundled-tour calculations involving interacting discounts. Evaluations of a line of LLMs reveal a steep performance drop on the harder tier,exposing systematic failures in rule interpretation and arithmetic reasoning.These results highlight that, despite their general capabilities, today's LLMs remain unreliable in revenue-critical applications without further safeguards or domain adaptation. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/EIT-NLP/PricingLogic.

CLApr 24, 2025Code
Evaluating Intermediate Reasoning of Code-Assisted Large Language Models for Mathematics

Zena Al-Khalili, Nick Howell, Dietrich Klakow

Assisting LLMs with code generation improved their performance on mathematical reasoning tasks. However, the evaluation of code-assisted LLMs is generally restricted to execution correctness, lacking a rigorous evaluation of their generated programs. In this work, we bridge this gap by conducting an in-depth analysis of code-assisted LLMs generated programs in response to math reasoning tasks, with a focus on evaluating the soundness of the underlying reasoning processes. For this purpose, we assess the generations of five LLMs, on several math datasets, both manually and automatically, and propose a taxonomy of generated programs based on their logical soundness. Our findings show that the capabilities of models significantly impact the logic implemented to solve the problem. Closed-source LLMs ground their programs in mathematical concepts, whereas open-source models often resort to unsound reasoning, relying on memorized information and exhaustive searches. Furthermore, increasing the difficulty of problems decreases sound generations for all models, revealing a critical shortcoming of LLMs on complex mathematics, contrary to what accuracy metrics suggest. Our work highlights the need for more holistic evaluations of code-assisted LLMs beyond execution accuracy metrics, toward a better understanding of LLMs' limits in the math domain.