A NotSo Simple Way to Beat Simple Bench

AI-generated keywords: Language Models Iterative Reasoning Feedback-driven Methodologies Logical Coherence Multi-step Prompting

AI-generated Key Points

  • A novel framework enhances reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through iterative reasoning and feedback-driven methodologies.
  • Proposed approach involves multi-step prompting strategy and global consistency checks to improve model accuracy and robustness.
  • Comparative analysis shows that iterative reasoning significantly boosts model performance, with improvements in standard accuracy metrics (AVG@5) and Extreme Averaging (EAG@5).
  • Specific strengths of leading models highlighted: Claude excels in logical consistency, GPT-4o showcases exploratory creativity but struggles with ambiguous prompts.
  • Research underscores areas for further refinement in spatial and temporal reasoning, emphasizing potential of structured reasoning frameworks to overcome model limitations.
  • Study lays groundwork for integrating dynamic feedback mechanisms, adaptive restart strategies, and diverse evaluation metrics to advance LLM reasoning capabilities across complex problem spaces.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Soham Sane, Angus McLean

29 pages, 11 Figures
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: This paper presents a novel framework for enhancing reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs) by leveraging iterative reasoning and feedback-driven methodologies. Building on the limitations identified in the SimpleBench benchmark, a dataset designed to evaluate logical coherence and real-world reasoning, we propose a multi-step prompting strategy coupled with global consistency checks to improve model accuracy and robustness. Through comparative analysis of state-of-the-art models, including Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3.5, GPT- 4o, and o1-preview, we demonstrate that iterative reasoning significantly enhances model performance, with improvements observed in both standard accuracy metrics (AVG@5) and a newly introduced metric, Extreme Averaging (EAG@5). Our results reveal model-specific strengths: Claude excels in maintaining logical consistency, while GPT-4o exhibits exploratory creativity but struggles with ambiguous prompts. By analyzing case studies and identifying gaps in spatial and temporal reasoning, we highlight areas for further refinement. The findings underscore the potential of structured reasoning frameworks to address inherent model limitations, irrespective of pretraining methodologies. This study lays the groundwork for integrating dynamic feedback mechanisms, adaptive restart strategies, and diverse evaluation metrics to advance LLM reasoning capabilities across complex and multi-domain problem spaces.

Submitted to arXiv on 12 Dec. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2412.12173v1

This paper presents a novel framework that enhances the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by incorporating iterative reasoning and feedback-driven methodologies. The research addresses limitations identified in the SimpleBench benchmark for evaluating logical coherence and real-world reasoning. The proposed approach involves a multi-step prompting strategy combined with global consistency checks to improve model accuracy and robustness. A comparative analysis of leading models such as Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3.5, GPT-4o, and o1-preview demonstrates that iterative reasoning significantly boosts model performance. Improvements are observed in standard accuracy metrics (AVG@5) as well as a newly introduced metric called Extreme Averaging (EAG@5). The results highlight specific strengths of each model; for instance, Claude excels in maintaining logical consistency while GPT-4o showcases exploratory creativity but struggles with ambiguous prompts. Through case studies and identification of gaps in spatial and temporal reasoning, the research underscores areas for further refinement. It emphasizes the potential of structured reasoning frameworks to address inherent model limitations regardless of pretraining methodologies. The study lays the groundwork for integrating dynamic feedback mechanisms, adaptive restart strategies, and diverse evaluation metrics to advance LLM reasoning capabilities across complex problem spaces. The background section provides context on the challenges faced by LLMs in maintaining logical coherence and navigating multi-step problem-solving scenarios. Existing methods like direct inference or chain-of-thought prompting have shown partial success but often struggle with global consistency and adapting to ambiguous problems. The paper addresses these challenges by proposing an iterative reasoning framework that incorporates multi-step prompting, feedback validation, and global consistency checks. This structured process aims to enhance logical coherence, adaptability, and overall robustness of LLMs when tackling complex reasoning tasks. Related work is discussed, highlighting previous efforts such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and iterative CoT prompting with feedback loops. While these approaches have shown promise in improving LLM reasoning capabilities, they have limitations in scalability and handling complex tasks consistently. The primary goals of this research are to overcome existing limitations in reasoning methodologies by introducing an iterative framework that enhances model performance through dynamic adaptability and refined reasoning processes.
Created on 19 Apr. 2025

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.