$R^3$-Bench: LLMs Struggle with Resource-Rational Reasoning under Shared Budgets

In cognitive science, resource rationality asks how an agent should allocate limited computation to maximize expected value. Most reasoning and agent benchmarks use independent per-task budgets; existing shared-budget studies do not calibrate suite performance against the same model's demonstrated single-problem competence. We introduce $R^3$-Bench, which evaluates six-problem suites under shared budgets across mathematics, competitive programming, and abstract reasoning in tool-free and agentic settings. Matched single-problem response curves define an offline empirical oracle over observed successes. Across 72 main-table cells for six models, the oracle mean matches or exceeds the contest mean in all cells and is strictly higher in 71. Under moderate tool-free pressure, equal-allocation replay also exceeds contest performance for four of six models. Trajectory diagnostics reveal limited strategy updating and pressure-dependent failure patterns. In a three-model diagnostic under strong agentic pressure, at least one fixed scheduler exceeds the contest mean in six of nine cells, but no policy dominates across domains. These results expose a persistent gap between demonstrated competence and shared-budget realization.

QuantumMind: Constraint-Grounded Agentic Reasoning for Speedup Analysis in Quantum Computing

Identifying a meaningful quantum speedup requires more than matching a classical problem to a familiar quantum primitive: the claim must preserve the task, respect access and output models, expose required promises, and remain within a defensible complexity scope. We present QuantumMind, an auditable agentic workflow for generating and conservatively screening quantum-acceleration hypotheses. A fixed sequence of typed, role-specialized actions formalizes the public task, analyzes structure and classical bottlenecks, matches a source-linked registry of quantum primitives and barriers, and constructs a scoped candidate scheme. A deterministic ten-check validator assigns the authoritative verdict; completed states are compiled into a Quantum Acceleration Evidence Graph and passed through a downward-only research screen that cannot strengthen the decision. We evaluate QuantumMind against seven task-adapted prompting and agentic controls on 582 identical open-discovery tasks. Under the frozen Open-Discovery Score (ODS), QuantumMind obtains 53.1 mean ODS, exceeding the strongest baseline by 17.3 points (48.2% relative), and wins 355 of 582 paired tasks against that baseline. It passes the graph audit on 99.8% of tasks, compared with 43.6% for the strongest baseline, and ranks first in all seven task families. The results indicate that typed state transitions and deterministic evidence control contribute beyond fluent generation alone.

Efficient Agentic Reasoning Through Self-Regulated Simulative Planning

How should an agent decide when and how to plan? A dominant approach builds agents as reactive policies with adaptive computation (e.g., chain-of-thought), trained end-to-end expecting planning to emerge implicitly. Without control over the presence, structure, or horizon of planning, these systems dramatically increase reasoning length, yielding inefficient token use without reliable accuracy gains. We argue efficient agentic reasoning benefits from decomposing decision-making into three systems: simulative reasoning (System II) grounding deliberation in future-state prediction via a world model; self-regulation (System III) deciding when and how deeply to plan via a learned configurator; and reactive execution (System I) handling fine-grained action. Simulative reasoning provides unified planning across diverse tasks without per-domain engineering, while self-regulation ensures the planner is invoked only when needed. To test this, we develop SR$^2$AM (Self-Regulated Simulative Reasoning Agentic LLM), realizing both as distinct stages within an LLM's chain-of-thought, with the LLM as world model. We explore two instantiations: recording decisions from a prompted multi-module system (v0.1) and reconstructing structured plans from traces of pretrained reasoning LLMs (v1.0), trained via supervised then reinforcement learning (RL). Across math, science, tabular analysis, and web information seeking, v0.1-8B and v1.0-30B achieve Pass@1 competitive with 120-355B and 685B-1T parameter systems respectively, while v1.0-30B uses 25.8-95.3% fewer reasoning tokens than comparable agentic LLMs. RL increases average planning horizon by 22.8% while planning frequency grows only 2.0%, showing it learns to plan further ahead rather than more often. More broadly, learned self-regulation instantiates a principle we expect to extend beyond planning to how agents govern their own learning and adaptation.