Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

ARB: Advanced Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models

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 2307.13692 v2 pith:Y42NP566 submitted 2023-07-25 cs.CL cs.LG

ARB: Advanced Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords reasoningevaluationmodelsadvancedbenchmarksgpt-4introduceproblems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on various quantitative reasoning and knowledge benchmarks. However, many of these benchmarks are losing utility as LLMs get increasingly high scores, despite not yet reaching expert performance in these domains. We introduce ARB, a novel benchmark composed of advanced reasoning problems in multiple fields. ARB presents a more challenging test than prior benchmarks, featuring problems in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and law. As a subset of ARB, we introduce a challenging set of math and physics problems which require advanced symbolic reasoning and domain knowledge. We evaluate recent models such as GPT-4 and Claude on ARB and demonstrate that current models score well below 50% on more demanding tasks. In order to improve both automatic and assisted evaluation capabilities, we introduce a rubric-based evaluation approach, allowing GPT-4 to score its own intermediate reasoning steps. Further, we conduct a human evaluation of the symbolic subset of ARB, finding promising agreement between annotators and GPT-4 rubric evaluation scores.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Invariant Gradient Alignment for Robust Reasoning Distillation

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Invariant Gradient Alignment uses Logical Isomer Sets and a Continuous Gradient Conflict Mask to tighten OOD generalization bounds and boost empirical performance over ERM in reasoning distillation.

  2. PyraMathBench: Evaluating and Improving Mathematical Capability in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PyraMathBench reveals LLMs' weaknesses in numerical computation for math tasks and SOLVE/IRPO training delivers a 5.0 point gain on Qwen-2.5.

  3. Ideas Have Genomes: Benchmarking Scientific Lineage Reasoning and Lineage-Grounded Idea Generation

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new benchmark (IG-Bench) reveals that LLM-based scientists fail at compositional lineage reasoning, with the best system reaching only 27.3% exact accuracy.

  4. Riemann-Bench: A Benchmark for Moonshot Mathematics

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Riemann-Bench is a private benchmark of 25 research-level math problems on which all tested frontier AI models score below 10%.

  5. Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexity

    cs.CL 2023-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Jailbreak prompts with adversarial suffixes have high GPT-2 perplexity, and a LightGBM model on perplexity and length detects most attacks.

  6. Evaluation of LLM-Based Software Engineering Tools: Practices, Challenges, and Future Directions

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LLM-based SE tools lack stable ground truth and deterministic outputs, making standard evaluation assumptions invalid and requiring new approaches for reliable assessment.