Nuo Chen
Publications
Exposing Weaknesses of Large Reasoning Models through Graph Algorithm Problems
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have advanced rapidly; however, existing benchmarks in mathematics, code, and common-sense reasoning remain limited. They lack long-context evaluation, offer insufficient challenge, and provide answers that are difficult to verify programmatically. We introduce GrAlgoBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate LRMs through graph algorithm problems. Such problems are particularly well suited for probing reasoning abilities: they demand long-context reasoning, allow fine-grained control of difficulty levels, and enable standardized, programmatic evaluation. Across nine tasks, our systematic experiments reveal two major weaknesses of current LRMs. First, accuracy deteriorates sharply as context length increases, falling below 50% once graphs exceed 120 nodes. This degradation is driven by frequent execution errors, weak memory, and redundant reasoning. Second, LRMs suffer from an over-thinking phenomenon, primarily caused by extensive yet largely ineffective self-verification, which inflates reasoning traces without improving correctness. By exposing these limitations, GrAlgoBench establishes graph algorithm problems as a rigorous, multidimensional, and practically relevant testbed for advancing the study of reasoning in LRMs. Code is available at https://github.com/Bklight999/GrAlgoBench.
Incentivizing In-depth Reasoning over Long Contexts with Process Advantage Shaping
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has proven effective in enhancing LLMs short-context reasoning, but its performance degrades in long-context scenarios that require both precise grounding and robust long-range reasoning. We identify the "almost-there" phenomenon in long-context reasoning, where trajectories are largely correct but fail at the final step, and attribute this failure to two factors: (1) the lack of high reasoning density in long-context QA data that push LLMs beyond mere grounding toward sophisticated multi-hop reasoning; and (2) the loss of valuable learning signals during long-context RL training due to the indiscriminate penalization of partially correct trajectories with incorrect outcomes. To overcome this bottleneck, we propose DeepReasonQA, a KG-driven synthesis framework that controllably constructs high-difficulty, multi-hop long-context QA pairs with inherent reasoning chains. Building on this, we introduce Long-context Process Advantage Shaping (LongPAS), a simple yet effective method that performs fine-grained credit assignment by evaluating reasoning steps along Validity and Relevance dimensions, which captures critical learning signals from "almost-there" trajectories. Experiments on three long-context reasoning benchmarks show that our approach substantially outperforms RLVR baselines and matches frontier LLMs while using far fewer parameters. Further analysis confirms the effectiveness of our methods in strengthening long-context reasoning while maintaining stable RL training.
AlgBench: To What Extent Do Large Reasoning Models Understand Algorithms?
Reasoning ability has become a central focus in the advancement of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). Although notable progress has been achieved on several reasoning benchmarks such as MATH500 and LiveCodeBench, existing benchmarks for algorithmic reasoning remain limited, failing to answer a critical question: Do LRMs truly master algorithmic reasoning? To answer this question, we propose AlgBench, an expert-curated benchmark that evaluates LRMs under an algorithm-centric paradigm. AlgBench consists of over 3,000 original problems spanning 27 algorithms, constructed by ACM algorithmic experts and organized under a comprehensive taxonomy, including Euclidean-structured, non-Euclidean-structured, non-optimized, local-optimized, global-optimized, and heuristic-optimized categories. Empirical evaluations on leading LRMs (e.g., Gemini-3-Pro, DeepSeek-v3.2-Speciale and GPT-o3) reveal substantial performance heterogeneity: while models perform well on non-optimized tasks (up to 92%), accuracy drops sharply to around 49% on globally optimized algorithms such as dynamic programming. Further analysis uncovers \textbf{strategic over-shifts}, wherein models prematurely abandon correct algorithmic designs due to necessary low-entropy tokens. These findings expose fundamental limitations of problem-centric reinforcement learning and highlight the necessity of an algorithm-centric training paradigm for robust algorithmic reasoning.