Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex mathematical benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning while generating unnecessarily verbose responses. In this paper, we present **LLMThinkBench**, a systematic benchmark and comprehensive empirical study to evaluate the efficiency of reasoning in LLMs, focusing on the fundamental tradeoff between accuracy and overthinking. **First,** we formalize the *accuracy-verbosity tradeoff*. **Second,** we introduce the *Overthinking Score*, a harmonic-mean metric combining accuracy and token-efficiency for holistic model evaluation. **Third,** we establish an evaluation protocol with dynamically-generated data across **14** basic math tasks. **Fourth,** we conduct a large-scale empirical study evaluating **53** LLMs, including reasoning and quantized variants across different reasoning budgets. **Fifth,** we release **LLMThinkBench** as an open-source Python package and public leaderboard for reproducibility. Our findings reveal: ****1)**** model performance on complex benchmarks does not translate directly to basic math reasoning; ****2)**** reasoning models generate **∼18× more tokens** while sometimes achieving **lower accuracy** and exhibit catastrophic collapse when tokens are constrained, dropping by up to **∼36%**; ****3)**** the accuracy-verbosity relationship is non-monotonic with extended reasoning budgets yielding diminishing returns (GPT-5/o-series models show zero accuracy gain from **low → medium → high** reasoning effort). *Our findings challenge the assumption that longer reasoning in LLMs necessarily improves mathematical reasoning.* Our public leaderboard is available at https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/LLMThinkBench/. Our open-source Python package is available at https://pypi.org/project/llmthinkbench/, and the codebase can be found at https://github.com/ctrl-gaurav/LLMThinkBench for easy and reproducible evaluation.

Multimodal foundation models that integrate audio, vision, and language achieve strong performance on reasoning and generation tasks, yet their robustness to adversarial manipulation remains poorly understood. We study a realistic and underexplored threat model: **untargeted, audio-only adversarial attacks** on trimodal audio–video–language models. We analyze six complementary attack objectives that target different stages of multimodal processing, including audio encoder representations, cross-modal attention, hidden states, and output likelihoods. Across four state-of-the-art models and multiple benchmarks, we show that audio-only perturbations can induce severe multimodal failures, achieving up to **96% attack success rate.** We further show that attacks can be successful at low perceptual distortions (LPIPS ≤ 0.08, SI-SNR ≥ 0 dB) and benefit more from extended optimization than increased data scale. We evaluate the feasibility of these attacks under physically realistic conditions by incorporating room impulse response (RIR) modeling, showing that audio-only perturbations remain effective under environmental transformations and thus highlight the practical risk of single-modality attacks in real-world multimodal systems. Transferability across models and encoders remains limited, while speech recognition systems such as Whisper primarily respond to perturbation magnitude, achieving **>97% attack success** under severe distortion. These results expose a previously overlooked single-modality attack surface in multimodal systems and motivate defenses that enforce cross-modal consistency. Our project website is available at https://aafiya-h.github.io/soundbreak/.

Reasoning has long been viewed as an emergent property of large language models (LLMs). However, recent studies challenge this assumption, showing that small language models (SLMs) can also achieve competitive reasoning performance. This paper introduces ThinkSLM, the first extensive benchmark to systematically evaluate and study the reasoning abilities of SLMs trained from scratch or derived from LLMs through quantization, pruning, and distillation. We first establish a reliable evaluation criterion comparing available methods and LLM judges against our human evaluations. Then we present a study evaluating 72 diverse SLMs from six major model families across 17 reasoning benchmarks. We repeat all our experiments three times to ensure a robust assessment. Our findings show that: 1) reasoning ability in SLMs is strongly influenced by training methods and data quality rather than solely model scale; 2) quantization preserves reasoning capability, while pruning significantly disrupts it; 3) larger models consistently exhibit higher robustness against adversarial perturbations and intermediate reasoning, but certain smaller models closely match or exceed the larger models’ performance. Our findings challenge the assumption that scaling is the only way to achieve strong reasoning. Instead, we foresee a future where SLMs with strong reasoning capabilities can be developed through structured training or post-training compression. Our ThinkSLM Leaderboard is publicly available at: https://ctrl-gaurav.github.io/thinkslm.github.io/.

Large language models (LLMs) have improved significantly in their reasoning through extensive training on massive datasets. However, relying solely on additional data for improvement is becoming increasingly impractical, highlighting the need for models to autonomously enhance their reasoning without external supervision. In this paper, we propose Debate, Train, Evolve (DTE), a novel ground truth-free training framework that uses multi-agent debate traces to evolve a single language model. We also introduce a new prompting strategy Reflect-Critique-Refine, to improve debate quality by explicitly instructing agents to critique and refine their reasoning. Extensive evaluations on seven reasoning benchmarks with six open-weight models show that our DTE framework achieve substantial improvements, with an average accuracy gain of 8.92% on the challenging GSM-PLUS dataset. Furthermore, we observe strong cross-domain generalization, with an average accuracy gain of 5.8% on all other benchmarks, suggesting that our method captures general reasoning capabilities. Our framework code and trained models are publicly available at https://github.com/ctrl-gaurav/Debate-Train-Evolve.