System Design for Maintaining Internal State Consistency in Long-Horizon Robotic Tabletop Games

Long-horizon tabletop games pose a distinct systems challenge for robotics: small perceptual or execution errors can invalidate accumulated task state, propagate across decision-making modules, and ultimately derail interaction. This paper studies how to maintain internal state consistency in turn-based, multi-human robotic tabletop games through deliberate system design rather than isolated component improvement. Using Mahjong as a representative long-horizon setting, we present an integrated architecture that explicitly maintains perceptual, execution, and interaction state, partitions high-level semantic reasoning from time-critical perception and control, and incorporates verified action primitives with tactile-triggered recovery to prevent premature state corruption. We further introduce interaction-level monitoring mechanisms to detect turn violations and hidden-information breaches that threaten execution assumptions. Beyond demonstrating complete-game operation, we provide an empirical characterization of failure modes, recovery effectiveness, cross-module error propagation, and hardware-algorithm trade-offs observed during deployment. Our results show that explicit partitioning, monitored state transitions, and recovery mechanisms are critical for sustaining executable consistency over extended play, whereas monolithic or unverified pipelines lead to measurable degradation in end-to-end reliability. The proposed system serves as an empirical platform for studying system-level design principles in long-horizon, turn-based interaction.

Generative Evaluation of Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models

With powerful large language models (LLMs) demonstrating superhuman reasoning capabilities, a critical question arises: Do LLMs genuinely reason, or do they merely recall answers from their extensive, web-scraped training datasets? Publicly released benchmarks inevitably become contaminated once incorporated into subsequent LLM training sets, undermining their reliability as faithful assessments. To address this, we introduce KUMO, a generative evaluation framework designed specifically for assessing reasoning in LLMs. KUMO synergistically combines LLMs with symbolic engines to dynamically produce diverse, multi-turn reasoning tasks that are partially observable and adjustable in difficulty. Through an automated pipeline, KUMO continuously generates novel tasks across open-ended domains, compelling models to demonstrate genuine generalization rather than memorization. We evaluated 23 state-of-the-art LLMs on 5,000 tasks across 100 domains created by KUMO, benchmarking their reasoning abilities against university students. Our findings reveal that many LLMs have outperformed university-level performance on easy reasoning tasks, and reasoning-scaled LLMs reach university-level performance on complex reasoning challenges. Moreover, LLM performance on KUMO tasks correlates strongly with results on newly released real-world reasoning benchmarks, underscoring KUMO's value as a robust, enduring assessment tool for genuine LLM reasoning capabilities.