A Temporal Reasoning Benchmarking Framework for LRMs via Difficulty-Controlled and Dynamic Test Generation
Shide Zhou, Kailong Wang, Ling Shi, Haoyu Wang
Abstract
Defining the reasoning boundaries and ensuring the reliability of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) remains a critical challenge. Current benchmarks primarily rely on static datasets susceptible to data contamination or synthetic tasks lacking fine-grained difficulty control. Furthermore, standard outcome-based evaluations often conceal reasoning flaws by neglecting the reasoning process.
To address these limitations, we introduce TRACE, a testing framework that models temporal reasoning as constraint satisfaction problems via Allen's Interval Algebra. This approach enables precise regulation of logical complexity and incorporates a Trace-Based Verification Oracle to validate reasoning faithfulness. Using this framework, we construct TRACEBench, an extensive benchmark comprising 1,200 synthesized test instances across graded difficulty levels. We employ TRACE to evaluate eight widely used LRMs on TRACEBench. The results confirm a strong negative correlation between model performance and our difficulty metric (Pearson's 𝑟 ≈ -0.96), validating the effectiveness of our difficulty control mechanism. Moreover, our trace-based analysis exposes significant discrepancies between reasoning validity and final answers, revealing a high spurious guessing rate of approximately 28% in mid-sized models. In addition, we diagnose scale-dependent failure modes, ranging from Degenerative Loops in small models to Reasoning Explosion in advanced architectures. TRACE thus provides a robust, automated platform for benchmarking the true temporal reasoning capabilities of LRMs.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 2f114c0f-e835-4733-997f-bf88e86cf758Builds on14
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language ModelsShunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,068 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
Related papers
- Reasoning Structure of Large Language ModelsFrédéric Berdoz, Luca Lanzendörfer, Fabian Farestam, Roger WattenhoferICML 2026
- Beyond Timestamps: Bridging Forward and Backward Reasoning in Temporal Numerical and Relational UnderstandingXinying Qian, Ying Zhang, Xuhui Sui, Yu Zhao et al.ACL 2026
- Exposing Weaknesses of Large Reasoning Models through Graph Algorithm ProblemsQifan Zhang, Jianhao Ruan, Aochuan Chen, Kang Zeng et al.ICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- TTT-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning Ability with Simple and Novel Tic-Tac-Toe-style GamesPrakamya Mishra, Jiang Liu, Jialian Wu, Xiaodong Yu et al.EMNLP 2025
- RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning ModelsYunseok Han, Yejoon Lee, Jaeyoung DoICLR 2026 · 10 citations
