LPDS: Evaluating LLM Robustness Through Logic-Preserving Difficulty Scaling
Summary
Introduces LPDS, a framework to systematically evaluate LLM robustness by scaling difficulty of logic-preserving variations, finding that performance drops up to 5x compared to random sampling and that training on harder variations improves robustness.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 05/18/26, 06:40 AM
# LPDS: Evaluating LLM Robustness Through Logic-Preserving Difficulty Scaling
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15393](https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15393)
[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.15393)
> Abstract:As large language models \(LLMs\) are increasingly deployed to perform tasks with minimal human oversight, it is crucial that these models operate robustly\. In particular, a model that can solve a given problem should not fail simply because certain entities$\\unicode\{x2013\}$such as names, numbers, or other contextual details$\\unicode\{x2013\}$have changed while the underlying problem logic remains the same\. Prior work suggests that current LLMs still struggle with this form of robustness: they often succeed on some variations of a problem but fail on others\. However, existing evaluations often lack a systematic way to identify which logic\-preserving variations are most likely to induce failure\. Instead, they typically test a random subset of allowable variations, which can overstate robustness\. To address this gap, we introduce logic\-preserving difficulty scaling \(LPDS\), a framework that \(i\) quantifies the difficulty of a problem variation and \(ii\) systematically searches the space of allowable variations to find those that maximize difficulty and expose failures\. We show that as difficulty increases, performance declines and errors in the models' reasoning chains become more pronounced\. We further demonstrate that LPDS efficiently finds difficult problem variations for a model, resulting in performance drops up to 5 times larger compared to random sampling\. Finally, we show that fine\-tuning on more difficult variations leads to more consistent robustness gains than training on easier ones\.
## Submission history
From: Philipp Mondorf \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/68e3a037/2605.15393)\] **\[v1\]**Thu, 14 May 2026 20:26:59 UTC \(431 KB\)Similar Articles
From 0-Order Selection to 2-Order Judgment: Combinatorial Hardening Exposes Compositional Failures in Frontier LLMs
This paper introduces LogiHard, a framework that uses combinatorial hardening to expose compositional failures in frontier LLMs, demonstrating significant accuracy drops in logical reasoning tasks.
LLMEval-Logic: A Solver-Verified Chinese Benchmark for Logical Reasoning of LLMs with Adversarial Hardening
LLMEval-Logic is a new Chinese benchmark for evaluating logical reasoning in LLMs, featuring solver-verified answers and adversarial hardening. The benchmark reveals significant gaps in current models, with the best reaching only 37.5% accuracy on hard items.
Can RL Teach Long-Horizon Reasoning to LLMs? Expressiveness Is Key
This paper introduces ScaleLogic, a framework demonstrating that RL training compute scales as a power law with reasoning depth in LLMs. It highlights that logical expressiveness is key to improving downstream transfer and training efficiency.
ChaosBench-Logic v2: Evaluating LLM Logical Reasoning over Dynamical Systems at Scale
ChaosBench-Logic v2 is a large-scale benchmark of 40,886 questions over 165 dynamical systems that evaluates LLMs' logical reasoning abilities, revealing near-random performance on regime transition reasoning and systematic failure modes even in frontier models.
LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMs
This paper introduces LGMT, a framework that uses first-order logic to generate semantically invariant test cases for evaluating LLM reasoning reliability. Experiments on six LLMs show that LGMT exposes hidden defects missed by static benchmarks, suggesting evaluation should focus on robustness under logical invariance.