LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10855v3
• Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:11:08 GMT
• Title: LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles
• Authors: Shulin Huang, Shirong Ma, Yinghui Li, Mengzuo Huang, Wuhe Zou, Weidong Zhang, Hai-Tao Zheng,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel evaluation benchmark, LatEval, which assesses the model's lateral thinking within an interactive framework. In our benchmark, we challenge LLMs with 2 aspects: the quality of questions posed by the model and the model's capability to integrate information for problem-solving. For example, even the most advanced model, GPT-4, exhibits the advantage to some extent, yet still maintain a noticeable gap when compared to human.
• Score: 22.119796373133298
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With the continuous evolution and refinement of LLMs, they are endowed with impressive logical reasoning or vertical thinking capabilities. But can they think out of the box? Do they possess proficient lateral thinking abilities? Following the setup of Lateral Thinking Puzzles, we propose a novel evaluation benchmark, LatEval, which assesses the model's lateral thinking within an interactive framework. In our benchmark, we challenge LLMs with 2 aspects: the quality of questions posed by the model and the model's capability to integrate information for problem-solving. We find that nearly all LLMs struggle with employing lateral thinking during interactions. For example, even the most advanced model, GPT-4, exhibits the advantage to some extent, yet still maintain a noticeable gap when compared to human. This evaluation benchmark provides LLMs with a highly challenging and distinctive task that is crucial to an effective AI assistant.

Related papers

• Satori: Reinforcement Learning with Chain-of-Action-Thought Enhances LLM Reasoning via Autoregressive Search [57.28671084993782]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities across diverse domains. Recent studies have shown that increasing test-time computation enhances LLMs' reasoning capabilities. We propose a two-stage training paradigm: 1) a small-scale format tuning stage to internalize the COAT reasoning format and 2) a large-scale self-improvement stage leveraging reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T17:26:58Z)
• Leveraging Online Olympiad-Level Math Problems for LLMs Training and Contamination-Resistant Evaluation [55.21013307734612]
  AoPS-Instruct is a dataset of more than 600,000 high-quality QA pairs. LiveAoPSBench is an evolving evaluation set with timestamps, derived from the latest forum data. Our work presents a scalable approach to creating and maintaining large-scale, high-quality datasets for advanced math reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T06:39:38Z)
• Is your LLM trapped in a Mental Set? Investigative study on how mental sets affect the reasoning capabilities of LLMs [8.920202114368843]
  We present an investigative study on how Mental Sets influence the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Mental Sets refers to the tendency to persist with previously successful strategies, even when they become inefficient. We compare the performance of LLM models like Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct and GPT-4o in the presence of mental sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T02:29:15Z)
• Weak-eval-Strong: Evaluating and Eliciting Lateral Thinking of LLMs with Situation Puzzles [20.18736445118689]
  We introduce SPLAT, a benchmark leveraging Situation Puzzles to evaluate and elicit lateral thinking of Large Language Models (LLMs) This benchmark, containing 975 graded situation puzzles across three difficulty levels, employs a new multi-turn player-judge framework instead of the traditional model-based evaluation. Experiments demonstrate that a robust evaluation model, such as WizardLM-2, closely matches human judgements in both intermediate question-answering and final scenario accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T10:09:11Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• ToMBench: Benchmarking Theory of Mind in Large Language Models [41.565202027904476]
  ToM is the cognitive capability to perceive and ascribe mental states to oneself and others. Existing ToM evaluations are hindered by challenges such as constrained scope, subjective judgment, and unintended contamination. We introduce ToMBench with three key characteristics: a systematic evaluation framework encompassing 8 tasks and 31 abilities in social cognition, a multiple-choice question format to support automated and unbiased evaluation, and a build-from-scratch bilingual inventory to strictly avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T02:05:46Z)
• Everything of Thoughts: Defying the Law of Penrose Triangle for Thought Generation [42.472954457731355]
  We introduce a novel thought prompting approach called "Everything of Thoughts" (XoT) to defy the law of "Penrose triangle of existing thought paradigms. XoT leverages pretrained reinforcement learning and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to incorporate external domain knowledge into thoughts. We evaluate XoT on several challenging multi-solution problem-solving tasks, including Game of 24, 8-Puzzle, and Pocket Cube.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T12:30:36Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.