Even though my dataset is very small, I think it's sufficient to conclude that LLMs can't consistently reason. Also their reasoning performance gets worse as the SAT instance grows, which may be due to the context window becoming too large as the model reasoning progresses, and it gets harder to remember original clauses at the top of the context. A friend of mine made an observation that how complex SAT instances are similar to working with many rules in large codebases. As we add more rules, it gets more and more likely for LLMs to forget some of them, which can be insidious. Of course that doesn't mean LLMs are useless. They can be definitely useful without being able to reason, but due to lack of reasoning, we can't just write down the rules and expect that LLMs will always follow them. For critical requirements there needs to be some other process in place to ensure that these are met.
[&:first-child]:overflow-hidden [&:first-child]:max-h-full"
。业内人士推荐safew官方版本下载作为进阶阅读
软件股的噩梦，这次没有如期而至。而市场情绪在一夜之间发生了 180 度转向，这件事本身就值得好好说说。
13:08, 27 февраля 2026Россия
（一）向境外单位销售的完全在境外消费的研发服务、合同能源管理服务、设计服务、广播影视制作和发行服务、软件服务、电路设计和测试服务、信息系统服务、业务流程管理服务、离岸服务外包业务；