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
Robust Critics: Defending LLMs Against Multi-Turn Attacks
This paper proposes Dialogue Critic Guided Sampling (DCGS), a framework that defends LLMs against multi-turn adversarial attacks by inferring user intent from conversation history and using value/regret-based critics to score responses, achieving improved robustness without fine-tuning.
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.
Decoding-Level Taboo: A Diagnostic Stress Test for LLM Robustness
This paper introduces Decoding-Level Taboo, a runtime logit-space stress test that forces LLMs off their nominal generation paths to evaluate off-path robustness, showing that robustness improves with model scale and instruction alignment.
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.
RLearner-LLM: Balancing Logical Grounding and Fluency in Large Language Models via Hybrid Direct Preference Optimization
This paper introduces RLearner-LLM, a framework using Hybrid-DPO to balance logical correctness and fluency in LLM-generated explanations, achieving significant NLI entailment improvements across multiple domains and base models while mitigating the verbosity bias of standard preference signals.