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/.