Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasoners

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.19555 v3 pith:SPS5PIG6 submitted 2023-05-31 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords languagereasoningmodelstasksabstractlargellmsperformance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models have shown tremendous performance on a large variety of natural language processing tasks, ranging from text comprehension to common sense reasoning. However, the mechanisms responsible for this success remain opaque, and it is unclear whether LLMs can achieve human-like cognitive capabilities or whether these models are still fundamentally circumscribed. Abstract reasoning is a fundamental task for cognition, consisting of finding and applying a general pattern from few data. Evaluating deep neural architectures on this task could give insight into their potential limitations regarding reasoning and their broad generalisation abilities, yet this is currently an under-explored area. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark for evaluating language models beyond memorization on abstract reasoning tasks. We perform extensive evaluations of state-of-the-art LLMs, showing that they currently achieve very limited performance in contrast with other natural language tasks, even when applying techniques that have been shown to improve performance on other NLP tasks. We argue that guiding LLM generation to follow causal paths could help improve the generalisation and reasoning abilities of LLMs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Analysis of Error Sources in LLM-based Hypothesis Search for Few-Shot Rule Induction

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On 100 list-function tasks, LLM hypothesis search approaches human-level acquisition (0.487 vs 0.521 mean test accuracy) and clearly beats direct program generation (0.359), with hypothesis generation as the main erro...

  2. Large Language Models Show Signs of Alignment with Human Neurocognition During Abstract Reasoning

    q-bio.NC 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Only the largest tested LLMs (about 70 billion parameters) match human accuracy on an abstract reasoning task, and the internal geometry of their best layers correlates moderately with human frontal EEG activity.

  3. EXP-Bench: Can AI Conduct AI Research Experiments?

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    EXP-Bench is a new benchmark of 461 end-to-end AI research experiments, and leading AI agents complete fewer than 1 percent of them successfully.

  4. Adaptive Multi-Agent Reasoning via Automated Workflow Generation

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Automated workflow generation and iterative prompt refinement let a standard GPT-4.1 model outperform state-of-the-art reasoning models on a revised riddle benchmark.

Pith tools