REVIEW 1 cited by
In Case You Missed It: ARC 'Challenge' Is Not That Challenging
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
ARC Challenge appears more difficult than ARC Easy for modern LLMs primarily due to an evaluation setup that prevents direct comparison of answer choices rather than inherent complexity. Although some researchers have quietly shifted to a more appropriate scheme over the last year, the implications of this change have yet to be widely acknowledged. We highlight this overlooked shift, show how similar evaluation practices falsely imply reasoning deficits in other benchmarks, and demonstrate that fairer methods dramatically reduce performance gaps (e.g. on SIQA) and even yield superhuman results (OpenBookQA). In doing so, we reveal how evaluation shapes perceived difficulty and offer guidelines to ensure that multiple-choice evaluations accurately reflect actual model capabilities.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Self-Route: Automatic Mode Switching via Capability Estimation for Efficient Reasoning
Self-Route uses hidden-layer representations from a brief pre-inference plan to route each question to either short or long chain-of-thought, cutting tokens by 30-55% with under 2% accuracy loss.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.