We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems.Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a puzzle using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-based and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. Our error analysis reveals systematic failures such as satisfiability bias, context inconsistency, and condition omission, highlighting limitations of current LLMs in search-based logical reasoning. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Anjiang-Wei/SATBench

As large language models (LLMs) become integral to code-related tasks, a central question emerges: Do LLMs truly understand program semantics? We introduce EquiBench, a new benchmark for evaluating LLMs through equivalence checking, i.e., determining whether two programs produce identical outputs for all possible inputs. Unlike prior code generation benchmarks, this task directly tests a model’s ability to reason about program semantics. EquiBench consists of 2400 program pairs across four languages and six categories. These pairs are generated through program analysis, compiler scheduling, and superoptimization, ensuring high-confidence labels, nontrivial difficulty, and full automation. We evaluate 19 state-of-the-art LLMs and find that in the most challenging categories, the best accuracies are 63.8% and 76.2%, only modestly above the 50% random baseline. Further analysis reveals that models often rely on syntactic similarity rather than exhibiting robust reasoning about program semantics, highlighting current limitations. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/Anjiang-Wei/equibench