Creativity or Brute Force? Using Brainteasers as a Window into the Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models
Sophia Simeng Han, Howard Dai, Stephen Xia, Grant Zhang, Chen Liu, Lichang Chen, Hoang Huy Nguyen, Hongyuan Mei, Jiayuan Mao, R. Thomas McCoy
Abstract
Accuracy remains a standard metric for evaluating AI systems, but it offers limited insight into how models arrive at their solutions. In this work, we introduce a benchmark based on brainteasers written in long narrative form to probe more deeply into the types of reasoning strategies that models use. Brainteasers are well-suited for this goal because they can be solved with multiple approaches, such as a few-step solution that uses a creative insight or a longer solution that uses more brute force. We investigate large language models (LLMs) across multiple layers of reasoning, focusing not only on correctness but also on the quality and creativity of their solutions. We investigate many aspects of the reasoning process: (1) semantic parsing of the brainteasers into precise mathematical competition style formats; (2) generating solutions from these mathematical forms; (3) self-correcting solutions based on gold solutions; (4) producing step-by-step sketches of solutions; and (5) making use of hints. We find that LLMs are in many cases able to find creative, insightful solutions to brainteasers, suggesting that they capture some of the capacities needed to solve novel problems in creative ways. Nonetheless, there also remain situations where they rely on brute force despite the availability of more efficient, creative solutions, highlighting a potential direction for improvement in the reasoning abilities of LLMs.
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 b9866e29-276e-4ce9-ad30-9987ee54eb38Cited by top-tier papers2
- Language of Thought Shapes Output Diversity in Large Language ModelsShaoyang Xu, Wenxuan ZhangACL 2026 · 3 citations
- CourtReasoner: Can LLM Agents Reason Like Judges?Sophia Simeng Han, Yoshiki Takashima, Shannon Zejiang Shen, Chen Liu et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
Builds on16
- 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
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- Self-Rewarding Language ModelsWeizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li et al.ICML 2024 · 569 citations
- miniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematicsKunhao Zheng, Jesse Michael Han, Stanislas PoluICLR 2022 · 342 citations
Related papers
- Assessing the Creativity of LLMs in Proposing Novel Solutions to Mathematical ProblemsJunyi Ye, Jingyi Gu, Xinyun Zhao, Wenpeng Yin et al.AAAI 2025 · 2 citations
- SATBench: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Reasoning via Automated Puzzle Generation from SAT FormulasAnjiang Wei, Yuheng Wu, Yingjia Wan, Tarun Suresh et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMsZhongshen Zeng, Yinhong Liu, Yingjia Wan, Jingyao Li et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 51 citations
- Omni-MATH: A Universal Olympiad Level Mathematic Benchmark for Large Language ModelsBofei Gao, Feifan Song, Zhe Yang, Zefan Cai et al.ICLR 2025 · 3 citations
- Reasoning Structure of Large Language ModelsFrédéric Berdoz, Luca Lanzendörfer, Fabian Farestam, Roger WattenhoferICML 2026
