探索全球前沿学术脉络

EngTrace: A Symbolic Benchmark for Verifiable Process Supervision of Engineering Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly entering specialized, safety-critical engineering workflows governed by strict quantitative standards and immutable physical laws, making rigorous evaluation of their reasoning capabilities imperative. However, existing benchmarks such as MMLU, MATH, and HumanEval assess isolated cognitive skills, failing to capture the physically grounded reasoning central to engineering, where scientific principles, quantitative modeling, and practical constraints must converge. To enable verifiable process supervision in engineering, we introduce EngTrace, a symbolic benchmark built on 90 parameterized templates, each generating unique, contamination-resistant problem instances, spanning three major engineering branches, nine core domains, and 20 distinct areas, yielding 1,350 test cases that stress-test generalization across diverse physical scenarios. Moving beyond outcome matching, we introduce a verifiable two-stage evaluation framework that uses a tiered protocol to validate intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers through automated procedural checks and a heterogeneous AI Tribunal. Our evaluation of 27 leading LLMs reveals a distinct trade-off between numeric precision and trace fidelity, identifying a complexity cliff where abstract mathematical pre-training fails to translate into the integrative reasoning required for advanced engineering tasks.

Can LLMs Be CEOs? Benchmarking Strategic Resource Reallocation with Multi-Role Agent Simulation

arXiv:2606.17459v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating the decision-making capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a growing research priority, yet existing benchmarks focus on isolated cognitive tasks such as reasoning, knowledge retrieval, and economic rationality in stylized settings. These evaluations overlook the defining challenge of real executive decision-making: integrating conflicting recommendations from specialized stakeholders under information asymmetry, organizational constraints, and temporal dependencies. We introduce \textsc{CEO-Bench}, a multi-agent benchmark that evaluates LLMs on CEO-level strategic resource reallocation – the process of redirecting capital across business units in a multi-round, constraint-rich organizational environment. In \textsc{CEO-Bench}, LLM agents receive conflicting advice from four role-conditioned C-suite advisors (CFO, CTO, COO, CMO), each with private signals and distinct priorities, and must synthesize these into a concrete allocation plan evaluated along four dimensions: role integration, conditional boldness, history-sensitive judgment, and plan validity. Experiments across five frontier models on 13 scenarios reveal that all models achieve high structural validity but diverge sharply on strategic calibration – the hardest capability layer. We identify systematic failure modes including single-advisor capture, conservative default under ambiguity, and historical amnesia, and uncover a structural integration-boldness tradeoff: models that engage more deeply with conflicting perspectives tend to produce less decisive action. These findings delineate the current capability boundary of LLMs as organizational decision-makers and inform the design of future AI-assisted executive systems.