Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Chain-of-Thought Hub: A Continuous Effort to Measure Large Language Models' Reasoning Performance

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 2305.17306 v1 pith:6GMXH2LG submitted 2023-05-26 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Chain-of-Thought Hub: A Continuous Effort to Measure Large Language Models' Reasoning Performance

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords modelsreasoninglanguagelargellmscapabilitieschain-of-thoughtchallenging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are continuously being developed, their evaluation becomes increasingly important yet challenging. This work proposes Chain-of-Thought Hub, an open-source evaluation suite on the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models. We are interested in this setting for two reasons: (1) from the behavior of GPT and PaLM model family, we observe that complex reasoning is likely to be a key differentiator between weaker and stronger LLMs; (2) we envisage large language models to become the next-generation computational platform and foster an ecosystem of LLM-based new applications, this naturally requires the foundation models to perform complex tasks that often involve the composition of linguistic and logical operations. Our approach is to compile a suite of challenging reasoning benchmarks to track the progress of LLMs. Our current results show that: (1) model scale clearly correlates with reasoning capabilities; (2) As of May 2023, Claude-v1.3 and PaLM-2 are the only two models that are comparable with GPT-4, while open-sourced models still lag behind; (3) LLaMA-65B performs closely to code-davinci-002, indicating that with successful further development such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), it has great potential to be close to GPT-3.5-Turbo. Our results also suggest that for the open-source efforts to catch up, the community may focus more on building better base models and exploring RLHF.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. EvoPrompt: Connecting LLMs with Evolutionary Algorithms Yields Powerful Prompt Optimizers

    cs.CL 2023-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    EvoPrompt uses LLMs to run evolutionary operators on populations of prompts, outperforming human-engineered prompts by up to 25% on BIG-Bench Hard tasks across 31 datasets.

  2. Teachers' Perceived Benefits and Risks of AI Across Fifty-Five Countries: An Audit of LLM Alignment and Steerability

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Teachers' views on AI benefits and risks vary widely across 55 countries, but LLMs compress these differences, overestimate both sides, and show little improvement from country prompting or better reasoning.

  3. MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark

    cs.CL 2024-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    MMLU-Pro is a revised benchmark that makes language model evaluation harder and more stable by using ten options per question and emphasizing reasoning over simple knowledge recall.

  4. AgentOmnia: Scaling Agentic Models for Full-Scenario Applications

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Post-training an open Qwen3-30B agent on 52,361 verifiable tasks in 5,018 synthesized stateful environments lifts its average across four agent benchmarks from 22.9% to 41.7%.

  5. Is MoE Routing a Huffman Code? Discovering the Frequency-Diversity Law in Chain-of-Thought

    cs.CL 2026-05 reject novelty 5.0

    MoE routers allocate expert diversity in proportion to operation rarity (the "Frequency-Diversity Law"), and subset-difference pruning can expose this pattern when load-balancing creates redundant experts.