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
Chain-of-Thought Hub: A Continuous Effort to Measure Large Language Models' Reasoning Performance
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
EvoPrompt: Connecting LLMs with Evolutionary Algorithms Yields Powerful Prompt Optimizers
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.
-
Teachers' Perceived Benefits and Risks of AI Across Fifty-Five Countries: An Audit of LLM Alignment and Steerability
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.
-
MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark
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.
-
AgentOmnia: Scaling Agentic Models for Full-Scenario Applications
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%.
-
Is MoE Routing a Huffman Code? Discovering the Frequency-Diversity Law in Chain-of-Thought
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.