With powerful large language models (LLMs) demonstrating superhuman reasoning capabilities, a critical question arises: Do LLMs genuinely reason, or do they merely recall answers from their extensive, web-scraped training datasets? Publicly released benchmarks inevitably become contaminated once incorporated into subsequent LLM training sets, undermining their reliability as faithful assessments. To address this, we introduce KUMO, a generative evaluation framework designed specifically for assessing reasoning in LLMs. KUMO synergistically combines LLMs with symbolic engines to dynamically produce diverse, multi-turn reasoning tasks that are partially observable and adjustable in difficulty. Through an automated pipeline, KUMO continuously generates novel tasks across open-ended domains, compelling models to demonstrate genuine generalization rather than memorization. We evaluated 23 state-of-the-art LLMs on 5,000 tasks across 100 domains created by KUMO, benchmarking their reasoning abilities against university students. Our findings reveal that many LLMs have outperformed university-level performance on easy reasoning tasks, and reasoning-scaled LLMs reach university-level performance on complex reasoning challenges. Moreover, LLM performance on KUMO tasks correlates strongly with results on newly released real-world reasoning benchmarks, underscoring KUMO's value as a robust, enduring assessment tool for genuine LLM reasoning capabilities.
@article{arxiv.2504.02810,
title = {Generative Evaluation of Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models},
author = {Haowei Lin and Xiangyu Wang and Ruilin Yan and Baizhou Huang and Haotian Ye and Jianhua Zhu and Zihao Wang and James Zou and Jianzhu Ma and Yitao Liang},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02810},
year = {2025}
}