Nondeterministic Polynomial-time Problem Challenge: An Ever-Scaling Reasoning Benchmark for LLMs
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Reasoning is the fundamental capability of large language models (LLMs). Due to the rapid progress of LLMs, there are two main issues of current benchmarks: i) these benchmarks can be crushed in a short time (less than 1 year), and ii) these benchmarks may be easily hacked. To handle these issues, we propose the ever-scalingness for building the benchmarks which are scaling over complexity against crushing, instance against hacking and exploitation, oversight for easy verification, and coverage for real-world relevance. This paper presents Nondeterministic Polynomial-time Problem Challenge (NPPC), an ever-scaling reasoning benchmark for LLMs. Specifically, the NPPC has three main modules: i) npgym, which provides a unified interface of 25 well-known NP-complete problems and can generate any number of instances with any levels of complexities, ii) npsolver, which provides a unified interface to evaluate the problem instances with both online and offline models via APIs and local deployments, respectively, and iii) npeval, which provides the comprehensive and ready-to-use tools to analyze the performances of LLMs over different problems, the number of tokens, the reasoning errors and the solution errors. Extensive experiments over widely-used LLMs demonstrate: i) NPPC can successfully decrease the performances of advanced LLMs to below 10%, demonstrating that NPPC is not crushed by current models, ii) DeepSeek-R1, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and o1/o3-mini are the most powerful LLMs, and iii) the numbers of tokens in the advanced LLMs, e.g., Claude-3.7-Sonnet and DeepSeek-R1, are observed first to increase and then decrease when the problem instances become more and more difficult. Through continuously scaling analysis, NPPC can provide critical insights into the limits of LLMs' reasoning capabilities, exposing fundamental limitations and suggesting future directions for further improvements.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 9 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2025.
Builds on
9 of 42 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning3 Feb
- 2024Can Large Language Models Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT13 Aug
Other references · 7
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2024Benchmark Data Contamination of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 138
- 2019On the Measure of Intelligencecited by 129
- 2025SuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation across 285 Graduate Disciplinescited by 67
- 2025Inference-Time Scaling for Complex Tasks: Where We Stand and What Lies Aheadcited by 43
- 2025Inference-Time Computations for LLM Reasoning and Planning: A Benchmark and Insightscited by 30
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 3.
7 papers.
- 2025NP-Engine: Empowering Optimization Reasoning in Large Language Models with Verifiable Synthetic NP Problemscited by 11
- 2025BeyondBench: Contamination-Resistant Evaluation of Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 7
- 2025RedAHD: Reduction-Based End-to-End Automatic Heuristic Design with Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Rethinking the Unsolvable: When In-Context Search Meets Test-Time Scalingcited by 2
- 2026From Pixels to Digital Agents: An Empirical Study on the Taxonomy and Technological Trends of Reinforcement Learning Environmentscited by 0
- 2026MathConstraint: Automated Generation of Verified Combinatorial Reasoning Instances for LLMscited by 0
- 2026Reinforcement Learning without Ground-Truth Solutions can Improve LLMscited by 0
- 2026Reinforcement Learning without Ground-Truth Solutions can Improve LLMs25 Jun 2026
- 2026MathConstraint: Automated Generation of Verified Combinatorial Reasoning Instances for LLMs8 May 2026
- 2026From Pixels to Digital Agents: An Empirical Study on the Taxonomy and Technological Trends of Reinforcement Learning Environments25 Mar 2026
- 2025NP-Engine: Empowering Optimization Reasoning in Large Language Models with Verifiable Synthetic NP Problems18 Oct 2025
- 2025BeyondBench: Contamination-Resistant Evaluation of Reasoning in Language Models29 Sep 2025
- 2025Rethinking the Unsolvable: When In-Context Search Meets Test-Time Scaling28 May 2025
- 2025RedAHD: Reduction-Based End-to-End Automatic Heuristic Design with Large Language Models26 May 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023NPHardEval: Dynamic Benchmark on Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models via Complexity Classes
- 2026How Well Do LLMs Perform on the Simplest Long-Chain Reasoning Tasks: An Empirical Study on the Equivalence Class Problem
- 2026ThinkBooster: A Unified Framework for Seamless Test-Time Scaling of LLM Reasoning
- 2025Reasoning on a Budget: A Survey of Adaptive and Controllable Test-Time Compute in LLMs
- 2024LLM Reasoners: New Evaluation, Library, and Analysis of Step-by-Step Reasoning with Large Language Models
- 2025Reasoning Effort and Problem Complexity: A Scaling Analysis in LLMs
- 2024Inference Scaling vs Reasoning: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal LLM Problem-Solving
- 2026The Periodic Table of LLM Reasoning: A Structured Survey of Reasoning Paradigms, Methods, and Failure Modes