LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation benchmarks, such as MMLU, C-Eval, and GSM8K, evaluate models by posing a variety of problems, including problems about mathematics, science, law, and general knowledge. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark which assesses the model’s lateral thinking within an interactive framework. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation benchmark assesses the model’s lateral thinking within an interactive framework. |
Similar Papers
FineReason: Evaluating and Improving LLMs’ Deliberate Reasoning through Reflective Puzzle Solving (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Guizhen Chen, Weiwen Xu, Hao Zhang, Hou Pong Chan, Chaoqun Liu, Lidong Bing, Deli Zhao, Anh Tuan Luu, Yu Rong
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) highlight an important shift from the “System 1” way of quick reactions to the “system 2” style of reflection-and-correction problem solving. |
| Approach: | They propose a logic-puzzle benchmark for systematic evaluation of large language models' reasoning capabilities that decomposes each puzzle into atomic steps. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on state checking and state transition tasks and demonstrates gains in reasoning by up to 5.1%. |
RiddleBench: A New Generative Reasoning Benchmark for LLMs (2026.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, but complex reasoning skills require deeper investigation. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark of 1,737 puzzles to test reasoning beyond simple pattern matching. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs poorly when faced with reordered constraints or irrelevant information. |
Do You Get the Hint? Benchmarking LLMs on the Board Game Concept (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models have achieved impressive progress on many benchmarks, yet they still have fundamental weaknesses. |
| Approach: | They introduce Concept, a word-guessing board game, as a benchmark for probing abductive reasoning. |
| Outcome: | The proposed game is easily solved by humans, but is still very challenging for state-of-the-art LLMs (no model exceeds 40% success rate). |
Exposing the Achilles’ Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations focus on final accuracy, neglecting the critical aspect of reasoning capabilities. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate LLMs’ abilities to detect and correct reasoning mistakes by using rule-based methods and smaller language models. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing models such as GPT-4o and GPT4 in both accuracy and accuracy, but lacks data contamination and memorization concerns. |
ValueBench: Towards Comprehensively Evaluating Value Orientations and Understanding of Large Language Models (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming diverse fields and gaining increasing influence as human proxies. |
| Approach: | They propose a psychometric evaluation pipeline grounded in realistic human-AI interactions to probe value orientations and novel tasks for evaluating value understanding in an open-ended value space. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation pipeline is grounded in realistic human-AI interactions and performs tasks that approximate expert conclusions in value-related extraction and generation tasks. |
LLM-Evolve: Evaluation for LLM’s Evolving Capability on Benchmarks (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for large language models evaluate LLMs on i.i.d. tasks, overlooking their ability to learn iteratively from past experiences. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework which extends established benchmarks to sequential problem-solving settings and provides feedback after each round to build a demonstration memory that the models can query in future tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can improve performance of LLMs by learning from past interactions and improve models' performance over time. |
Beyond Detection: Evaluating Fallacy Awareness of LLMs in Interactive Scenarios (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models fail to recognize fallacious reasoning in real-world interactions despite strong performance on static fallacy detection tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose a Chinese benchmark to assess fallacy awareness without explicit cues . they propose 'fate' evaluation framework that assesses fallacy without explicit . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses fallacy awareness without explicit cues, combining natural dialogue responses and reasoning-based decisions. |
SATBench: Benchmarking LLMs’ Logical Reasoning via Automated Puzzle Generation from SAT Formulas (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Anjiang Wei, Yuheng Wu, Yingjia Wan, Tarun Suresh, Huanmi Tan, Zhanke Zhou, Sanmi Koyejo, Ke Wang, Alex Aiken
| Challenge: | SATBench is a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability problems. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the baseline of 50%. |
From Informal to Formal – Incorporating and Evaluating LLMs on Natural Language Requirements to Verifiable Formal Proofs (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Jialun Cao, Yaojie Lu, Meiziniu Li, Haoyang Ma, Haokun Li, Mengda He, Cheng Wen, Le Sun, Hongyu Zhang, Shengchao Qin, Shing-Chi Cheung, Cong Tian
| Challenge: | Recent studies in formal mathematical reasoning have shown an unstoppable growth trend. |
| Approach: | They constructed 18k high-quality instruction-response pairs across five mainstream formal specification languages and evaluated them against ten open-sourced LLMs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model compared instruction-response pairs across five formal specification languages and found that the LLMs were good at writing proof segments when given either the code, or the detailed description of proof steps. |
Multi-LogiEval: Towards Evaluating Multi-Step Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Nisarg Patel, Mohith Kulkarni, Mihir Parmar, Aashna Budhiraja, Mutsumi Nakamura, Neeraj Varshney, Chitta Baral
| Challenge: | Existing logical reasoning evaluation benchmarks focus on simplistic single-step or multi-step reasoning with limited set of inference rules. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a multi-step logical reasoning evaluation dataset to measure their ability for human-like multi- step logical thinking. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset covers three logic types including propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logic with various inference rules and depths. |