SyntaxBench: A Statistical Diagnostic Framework for Character-Level Reasoning in Large Language Models
cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-10-02
Updated: 2026-10-02
Comments: 32 pages, 17 figures. The first two authors contributed equally. The code will be released soon
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Large language models are increasingly used where small syntactic errors matter, yet character-level reasoning is still evaluated mostly through isolated probes and aggregate accuracy.
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used where small syntactic errors matter, yet character-level reasoning is still evaluated mostly through isolated probes and aggregate accuracy. We introduce SyntaxBench, a diagnostic benchmark and statistical evaluation framework for character-level reasoning. It contains five core tasks, character counting, letter containment, palindrome detection, edit distance, and longest-string selection, plus index to span, a harder substring-extraction stress test. The five core tasks use paired English and character-length-matched random-string inputs. index to span documents share a 200-500 word band and are not character-length matched. All six tasks use zero-, one-, and four-shot prompts. We evaluate eight open-weight models from 2B to 32B parameters across 11 reasoning-mode configurations. The framework reports exact-match and relaxed accuracy, Cohen's kappa, paired McNemar tests with odds ratios, bootstrap confidence intervals, Kendall's tau, class-conditional metrics, tokenization analysis, and multiple-comparison-corrected tests. Three findings stand out. First, tokenization shapes accuracy: random strings are more character-visible than English strings (1.892 vs. 3.169 characters per token), and character-counting accuracy falls as English words occupy more tokens. Second, reasoning mode is not uniformly helpful: Gemma4-31B is nearly unchanged across modes on the near-saturated tasks, while Qwen3.6-27B is worse with thinking on palindrome detection (0.952 non-thinking vs. 0.886 thinking at four-shot). Third, index to span remains largely unsolved; the best four-shot exact-match accuracy is 6.75%. Character-level evaluation needs controlled inputs, paired tests, and analyses of tokenization and reasoning mode rather than aggregate accuracy alone.
Sources
- Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?
- Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems
- Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluations
- Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models
- Counting Ability of Large Language Models and Impact of Tokenization
- Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
- SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems
- GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering