REVIEW 3 cited by
LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles
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
read the original abstract
With the continuous evolution and refinement of LLMs, they are endowed with impressive logical reasoning or vertical thinking capabilities. But can they think out of the box? Do they possess proficient lateral thinking abilities? Following the setup of Lateral Thinking Puzzles, we propose a novel evaluation benchmark, LatEval, which assesses the model's lateral thinking within an interactive framework. In our benchmark, we challenge LLMs with 2 aspects: the quality of questions posed by the model and the model's capability to integrate information for problem-solving. We find that nearly all LLMs struggle with employing lateral thinking during interactions. For example, even the most advanced model, GPT-4, exhibits the advantage to some extent, yet still maintain a noticeable gap when compared to human. This evaluation benchmark provides LLMs with a highly challenging and distinctive task that is crucial to an effective AI assistant.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Refine Knowledge of Large Language Models via Adaptive Contrastive Learning
An adaptive contrastive learning strategy that uses a model's own sampled response accuracy to create per-region positive and negative training pairs improves LLM truthful rate by up to 6.9% over IDK-SFT.
-
Evaluation Hallucination in Multi-Round Incomplete Information Lateral-Driven Reasoning Tasks
LLM-as-judge scoring of multi-round lateral thinking tasks can be fooled by answer leakage and question substitution, so response-based metrics may overstate reasoning ability.
-
A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications
A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.