REVIEW 4 cited by
Large Language Models Are Not Strong Abstract Reasoners
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
Large Language Models have shown tremendous performance on a large variety of natural language processing tasks, ranging from text comprehension to common sense reasoning. However, the mechanisms responsible for this success remain opaque, and it is unclear whether LLMs can achieve human-like cognitive capabilities or whether these models are still fundamentally circumscribed. Abstract reasoning is a fundamental task for cognition, consisting of finding and applying a general pattern from few data. Evaluating deep neural architectures on this task could give insight into their potential limitations regarding reasoning and their broad generalisation abilities, yet this is currently an under-explored area. In this paper, we introduce a new benchmark for evaluating language models beyond memorization on abstract reasoning tasks. We perform extensive evaluations of state-of-the-art LLMs, showing that they currently achieve very limited performance in contrast with other natural language tasks, even when applying techniques that have been shown to improve performance on other NLP tasks. We argue that guiding LLM generation to follow causal paths could help improve the generalisation and reasoning abilities of LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Analysis of Error Sources in LLM-based Hypothesis Search for Few-Shot Rule Induction
On 100 list-function tasks, LLM hypothesis search approaches human-level acquisition (0.487 vs 0.521 mean test accuracy) and clearly beats direct program generation (0.359), with hypothesis generation as the main erro...
-
Large Language Models Show Signs of Alignment with Human Neurocognition During Abstract Reasoning
Only the largest tested LLMs (about 70 billion parameters) match human accuracy on an abstract reasoning task, and the internal geometry of their best layers correlates moderately with human frontal EEG activity.
-
EXP-Bench: Can AI Conduct AI Research Experiments?
EXP-Bench is a new benchmark of 461 end-to-end AI research experiments, and leading AI agents complete fewer than 1 percent of them successfully.
-
Adaptive Multi-Agent Reasoning via Automated Workflow Generation
Automated workflow generation and iterative prompt refinement let a standard GPT-4.1 model outperform state-of-the-art reasoning models on a revised riddle benchmark.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.