Breakpoint: Scalable evaluation of system-level reasoning in LLM code agents
Open accessAbstract
Benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) have predominantly assessed short-horizon, localized reasoning. Existing long-horizon suites (e.g. SWE-bench) rely on manually curated issues, so expanding or tuning difficulty demands expensive human effort and evaluations quickly saturate. However, many real-world tasks, such as software engineering or scientific research, require agents to rapidly comprehend and manipulate novel, complex structures dynamically; evaluating these capabilities requires the ability to construct large and varied sets of problems for agents to solve. We introduce Breakpoint, a benchmarking methodology that automatically generates code-repair tasks by adversarially corrupting functions within real-world software repositories. Breakpoint systematically controls task difficulty along two clear dimensions: local reasoning (characterized by code complexity metrics such as cyclomatic complexity) and system-level reasoning (characterized by call-graph centrality and the number of simultaneously corrupted interdependent functions). In experiments across more than 900 generated tasks we demonstrate that our methodology can scale to arbitrary difficulty, with state-of-the-art models' success rates ranging from 55% on the easiest tasks down to 0% on the hardest.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Breakpoint automatically creates code repair tasks by adversarially corrupting functions in real open-source repositories.
“Breakpoint (Hariharan et al., 2025) is one such approach: it automatically creates code repair tasks by adversarially corrupting functions in real open-source repositories.”
From ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases (2025) · cites this paper as Hariharan et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Elliot Glazer, Ege Erdil, Tamay Besiroglu, Diego Chicharro, Evan Chen, Alex Gunning, Caroline Falkman Olsson, Jean-Stanislas Denain, Anson Ho, Emily de Oliveira Santos, et al. Frontiermath: A benchmark for evaluating advanced mathematical reasoning in ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04872 , 2024. · arXiv
- Naman Jain, Manish Shetty, Tianjun Zhang, King Han, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. R2E: Turning Any GitHub Repository into a Programming Agent Environment. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , 2024. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/jain24c.html .
- Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues? In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2024. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2310.06770. · arXiv
- Emily Jin, Zhuoyi Huang, Jan-Philipp Fr¨ anken, Weiyu Liu, Hannah Cha, Erik Brockbank, Sarah Wu, Ruohan Zhang, Jiajun Wu, and Tobias Gerstenberg. Marple: A benchmark for long-horizon inference, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01926 . · arXiv
- Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, Ryan Bloom, Thomas Broadley, Haoxing Du, Brian Goodrich, Nikola Jurkovic, Luke Harold Miles, Seraphina Nix, Tao Lin, Neev Parikh, David Rein, Lucas Jun Koba Sato, Hjalmar Wijk, Daniel M. Ziegler, Elizabeth Barnes, and Lawrence Chan. Measuring ai ability to complete long tasks, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14499 . · arXiv
- Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, Yuhuai Wu, Behnam Neyshabur, Guy Gur-Ari, and Vedant Misra. Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14858 , 2022. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2206.14858. · arXiv
- Yujia Li, David Choi, Junyoung Chung, Nate Kushman, Julian Schrittwieser, R´ emi Leblond, Tom Eccles, James Keeling, Felix Gimeno, Agustin Dal Lago, Thomas Hubert, Peter Choy, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Igor Babuschkin, Xinyun Chen, Po-Sen Huang, Johannes Welbl, Sven Gowal, Alexey Cherepanov, James Molloy, Daniel Mankowitz, Esme Sutherland Robson, Pushmeet Kohli, Nando de Freitas, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Oriol Vinyals. Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode. Science , 378(6624): 1092-1097, 2022. doi: 10.1126/science.abq1158. · DOI · Paper page
- Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, Huan Sun, Minlie Huang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.03688. · DOI · Paper page
- Nat McAleese, Rai Michael Pokorny, Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe, Evgenia Nitishinskaya, Maja Trebacz, and Jan Leike. LLM Critics Help Catch LLM Bugs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00215 , 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.00215. · DOI · Paper page
- Daniel McFadden. Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of individuals: some recent developments. In Behavioural travel modelling , pp. 279-318. Routledge, 2021.
- Samuel Miserendino, Michele Wang, Tejal Patwardhan, and Johannes Heidecke. SWELancer: Can Frontier LLMs Earn $1 Million from Real-World Freelance Software Engineering? arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12115 , 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.12115. · DOI · Paper page
- Xinshuai Song, Weixing Chen, Yang Liu, Weikai Chen, Guanbin Li, and Liang Lin. Towards long-horizon vision-language navigation: Platform, benchmark and method, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09082 . · arXiv
- John Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.15793. · DOI · Paper page
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.03629. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases
Zhong, Z., Raghunathan, A., & Carlini, N. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20270
- Authors
- Hariharan, K., Girit, U., Wang, A., & Andreas, J.
- ORCID
- Andreas, Jacob
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.00172
- OpenAlex
- W4414888770
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- long-horizon reasoning, code repair, benchmark generation, adversarial corruption, cyclomatic complexity, breakpoints
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review