Noah D. Goodman

Peiyang Song, Pengrui Han, Noah Goodman

Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities, achieving impressive results across a wide range of tasks. Despite these advances, significant reasoning failures persist, occurring even in seemingly simple scenarios. To systematically understand and address these shortcomings, we present the first comprehensive survey dedicated to reasoning failures in LLMs. We introduce a novel categorization framework that distinguishes reasoning into embodied and non-embodied types, with the latter further subdivided into informal (intuitive) and formal (logical) reasoning. In parallel, we classify reasoning failures along a complementary axis into three types: fundamental failures intrinsic to LLM architectures that broadly affect downstream tasks; application-specific limitations that manifest in particular domains; and robustness issues characterized by inconsistent performance across minor variations. For each reasoning failure, we provide a clear definition, analyze existing studies, explore root causes, and present mitigation strategies. By unifying fragmented research efforts, our survey provides a structured perspective on systemic weaknesses in LLM reasoning, offering valuable insights and guiding future research towards building stronger, more reliable, and robust reasoning capabilities. We additionally release a comprehensive collection of research works on LLM reasoning failures, as a GitHub repository at https://github.com/Peiyang-Song/Awesome-LLM-Reasoning-Failures, to provide an easy entry point to this area.

Kanishk Gandhi, Shivam Garg, Noah D. Goodman et al.

Environments are the bottleneck for self-improving agents. Current terminal benchmarks were built for evaluation, not training; reinforcement learning requires a scalable pipeline, not just a dataset. We introduce Endless Terminals, a fully autonomous pipeline that procedurally generates terminal-use tasks without human annotation. The pipeline has four stages: generating diverse task descriptions, building and validating containerized environments, producing completion tests, and filtering for solvability. From this pipeline we obtain 3255 tasks spanning file operations, log management, data processing, scripting, and database operations. We train agents using vanilla PPO with binary episode level rewards and a minimal interaction loop: no retrieval, multi-agent coordination, or specialized tools. Despite this simplicity, models trained on Endless Terminals show substantial gains: on our held-out dev set, Llama-3.2-3B improves from 4.0% to 18.2%, Qwen2.5-7B from 10.7% to 53.3%, and Qwen3-8B-openthinker-sft from 42.6% to 59.0%. These improvements transfer to human-curated benchmarks: models trained on Endless Terminals show substantial gains on held out human curated benchmarks: on TerminalBench 2.0, Llama-3.2-3B improves from 0.0% to 2.2%, Qwen2.5-7B from 2.2% to 3.4%, and Qwen3-8B-openthinker-sft from 1.1% to 6.7%, in each case outperforming alternative approaches including models with more complex agentic scaffolds. These results demonstrate that simple RL succeeds when environments scale.

Kanishk Gandhi, Agam Bhatia, Noah D. Goodman

To predict what someone will say is to model how they think. We study this through next-turn dialogue prediction: given a conversation, predict the next utterance produced by a person. We compare learning approaches along two dimensions: (1) whether the model is allowed to think before responding, and (2) how learning is rewarded either through an LLM-as-a-judge that scores semantic similarity and information completeness relative to the ground-truth response, or by directly maximizing the log-probability of the true human dialogue. We find that optimizing for judge-based rewards indeed increases judge scores throughout training, however it decreases the likelihood assigned to ground truth human responses and decreases the win rate when human judges choose the most human-like response among a real and synthetic option. This failure is amplified when the model is allowed to think before answering. In contrast, by directly maximizing the log-probability of observed human responses, the model learns to better predict what people actually say, improving on both log-probability and win rate evaluations. Treating chain-of-thought as a latent variable, we derive a lower bound on the log-probability. Optimizing this objective yields the best results on all our evaluations. These results suggest that thinking helps primarily when trained with a distribution-matching objective grounded in real human dialogue, and that scaling this approach to broader conversational data may produce models with a more nuanced understanding of human behavior.