The NazoNazo Benchmark: A Cost-Effective and Extensible Test of Insight-Based Reasoning in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14704v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 07:50:04 GMT
• Title: The NazoNazo Benchmark: A Cost-Effective and Extensible Test of Insight-Based Reasoning in LLMs
• Authors: Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Jiyuan Fang, Heyuan Guan, Xingfu Li, Naoya Shiraishi, Xuyang Tian, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen,
• Abstract summary: We present Nazonazo, a cost-effective benchmark built from Japanese children's riddles to test insight-based reasoning.<n>No model except for GPT-5 is comparable to human performance, which achieves a 52.9% mean accuracy.
• Score: 3.9977256267361754
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Benchmark saturation and contamination undermine confidence in LLM evaluation. We present Nazonazo, a cost-effective and extensible benchmark built from Japanese children's riddles to test insight-based reasoning. Items are short (mostly one sentence), require no specialized domain knowledge, and can be generated at scale, enabling rapid refresh of blind sets when leakage is suspected. We evaluate 38 frontier models and 126 adults on 120 riddles. No model except for GPT-5 is comparable to human performance, which achieves a 52.9% mean accuracy. Model comparison on extended 201 items shows that reasoning models significantly outperform non-reasoning peers, while model size shows no reliable association with accuracy. Beyond aggregate accuracy, an informal candidate-tracking analysis of thought logs reveals many cases of verification failure: models often produce the correct solution among intermediate candidates yet fail to select it as the final answer, which we illustrate with representative examples observed in multiple models. Nazonazo thus offers a cost-effective, scalable, and easily renewable benchmark format that addresses the current evaluation crisis while also suggesting a recurrent meta-cognitive weakness, providing clear targets for future control and calibration methods.

Related papers

• When LLMs get significantly worse: A statistical approach to detect model degradations [33.63321816712603]
  Minimizing the inference cost and latency of foundation models has become a crucial area of research.<n>We propose a statistically sound hypothesis testing framework based on McNemar's test allowing to efficiently detect model degradations.<n>We find that with our tests even empirical accuracy degradations of 0.3% can be confidently attributed to actual degradations rather than noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T10:45:13Z)
• Learning More from Less: Unlocking Internal Representations for Benchmark Compression [37.69575776639016]
  We introduce REPCORE, which aligns heterogeneous hidden states into a unified latent space to construct representative coresets.<n>Experiments on five benchmarks and over 200 models show consistent gains over output-based baselines in ranking correlation and estimation accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T13:11:39Z)
• Truthfulness Despite Weak Supervision: Evaluating and Training LLMs Using Peer Prediction [5.366560952801833]
  We introduce the peer prediction method for model evaluation and post-training.<n>It rewards honest and informative answers over deceptive and uninformative ones.<n>We show that training an 8B model with peer prediction-based reward recovers most of the drop in truthfulness due to prior malicious finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T06:47:46Z)
• Measuring Language Model Hallucinations Through Distributional Correctness [7.106986689736826]
  A novel evaluation metric, the Distributional Correctness Score (DCS), is introduced to solve this problem.<n>DCS distinguishes between harmful overconfidence in wrong answers and uncertainty expressed through abstention, providing scores in an interpretable default range.<n>DCS is demonstrated to offer a more nuanced and aligned evaluation paradigm that incentivises models to express genuine uncertainty rather than guessing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T17:50:42Z)
• Reasoning or Memorization? Unreliable Results of Reinforcement Learning Due to Data Contamination [67.67725938962798]
  Pre-training on massive web-scale corpora leaves Qwen2.5 susceptible to data contamination in widely used benchmarks.<n>We introduce a generator that creates fully clean arithmetic problems of arbitrary length and difficulty, dubbed RandomCalculation.<n>We show that only accurate reward signals yield steady improvements that surpass the base model's performance boundary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:55:15Z)
• Reasoning Models Are More Easily Gaslighted Than You Think [85.84943447589511]
  We evaluate three state-of-the-art reasoning models, including OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash.<n>Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops following gaslighting negation prompts.<n>We introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:52:25Z)
• Accelerated Test-Time Scaling with Model-Free Speculative Sampling [58.69141724095398]
  We introduce STAND (STochastic Adaptive N-gram Drafting), a novel model-free speculative decoding approach.<n>We show that STAND reduces inference latency by 60-65% compared to standard autoregressive decoding.<n>As a model-free approach, STAND can be applied to any existing language model without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T07:31:18Z)
• Is Your Model Fairly Certain? Uncertainty-Aware Fairness Evaluation for LLMs [7.197702136906138]
  We propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerF, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness.<n> observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset.<n>We establish a benchmark, using our metric and dataset, and apply it to evaluate the behavior of ten open-source AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T20:45:18Z)
• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability.<n>Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks.<n>We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• Ranked from Within: Ranking Large Multimodal Models Without Labels [73.96543593298426]
  We show that uncertainty scores derived from softmax distributions provide a robust basis for ranking models across various tasks.<n>This facilitates the ranking of LMMs on unlabeled data, providing a practical approach for selecting models for diverse target domains without requiring manual annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T13:05:43Z)
• Investigating the Impact of Hard Samples on Accuracy Reveals In-class Data Imbalance [4.291589126905706]
  In the AutoML domain, test accuracy is heralded as the quintessential metric for evaluating model efficacy. However, the reliability of test accuracy as the primary performance metric has been called into question. The distribution of hard samples between training and test sets affects the difficulty levels of those sets. We propose a benchmarking procedure for comparing hard sample identification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T11:38:14Z)
• 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.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)

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.