-
Diverse Inference and Verification for Advanced Reasoning
Authors:
Iddo Drori,
Gaston Longhitano,
Mao Mao,
Seunghwan Hyun,
Yuke Zhang,
Sungjun Park,
Zachary Meeks,
Xin-Yu Zhang,
Ben Segev,
Howard Yong,
Nakul Verma,
Avi Shporer,
Alon Amit,
Madeleine Udell
Abstract:
Reasoning LLMs such as OpenAI o1, o3 and DeepSeek R1 have made significant progress in mathematics and coding, yet find challenging advanced tasks such as International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) combinatorics problems, Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) puzzles, and Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) questions. We use a diverse inference approach that combines multiple models and methods at test tim…
▽ More
Reasoning LLMs such as OpenAI o1, o3 and DeepSeek R1 have made significant progress in mathematics and coding, yet find challenging advanced tasks such as International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) combinatorics problems, Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) puzzles, and Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) questions. We use a diverse inference approach that combines multiple models and methods at test time. We find that verifying mathematics and code problems, and rejection sampling on other problems is simple and effective. We automatically verify correctness of solutions to IMO problems by Lean, and ARC puzzles by code, and find that best-of-N effectively answers HLE questions. Our approach increases answer accuracy on IMO combinatorics problems from 33.3% to 77.8%, accuracy on HLE questions from 8% to 37%, and solves 80% of ARC puzzles that 948 humans could not and 26.5% of ARC puzzles that o3 high compute does not. Test-time simulations, reinforcement learning, and meta-learning with inference feedback improve generalization by adapting agent graph representations and varying prompts, code, and datasets. Our approach is reliable, robust, and scalable, and in the spirit of reproducible research, we will make it publicly available upon publication.
△ Less
Submitted 14 February, 2025;
originally announced February 2025.
-
Humanity's Last Exam
Authors:
Long Phan,
Alice Gatti,
Ziwen Han,
Nathaniel Li,
Josephina Hu,
Hugh Zhang,
Chen Bo Calvin Zhang,
Mohamed Shaaban,
John Ling,
Sean Shi,
Michael Choi,
Anish Agrawal,
Arnav Chopra,
Adam Khoja,
Ryan Kim,
Richard Ren,
Jason Hausenloy,
Oliver Zhang,
Mantas Mazeika,
Dmitry Dodonov,
Tung Nguyen,
Jaeho Lee,
Daron Anderson,
Mikhail Doroshenko,
Alun Cennyth Stokes
, et al. (1084 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of…
▽ More
Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 2,500 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences. HLE is developed globally by subject-matter experts and consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions suitable for automated grading. Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval. State-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate low accuracy and calibration on HLE, highlighting a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and the expert human frontier on closed-ended academic questions. To inform research and policymaking upon a clear understanding of model capabilities, we publicly release HLE at https://lastexam.ai.
△ Less
Submitted 19 April, 2025; v1 submitted 24 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
-
AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews
Authors:
Keith Tyser,
Ben Segev,
Gaston Longhitano,
Xin-Yu Zhang,
Zachary Meeks,
Jason Lee,
Uday Garg,
Nicholas Belsten,
Avi Shporer,
Madeleine Udell,
Dov Te'eni,
Iddo Drori
Abstract:
Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. Gathering human preference may be time-consuming; therefore, we also use an LLM to automatically evaluate reviews…
▽ More
Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. Gathering human preference may be time-consuming; therefore, we also use an LLM to automatically evaluate reviews to increase sample efficiency while reducing bias. In addition to evaluating human and LLM preferences among LLM reviews, we fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We artificially introduce errors into papers and analyze the LLM's responses to identify limitations, use adaptive review questions, meta prompting, role-playing, integrate visual and textual analysis, use venue-specific reviewing materials, and predict human preferences, improving upon the limitations of the traditional review processes. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality. This work develops proof-of-concept LLM reviewing systems that quickly deliver consistent, high-quality reviews and evaluate their quality. We mitigate the risks of misuse, inflated review scores, overconfident ratings, and skewed score distributions by augmenting the LLM with multiple documents, including the review form, reviewer guide, code of ethics and conduct, area chair guidelines, and previous year statistics, by finding which errors and shortcomings of the paper may be detected by automated reviews, and evaluating pairwise reviewer preferences. This work identifies and addresses the limitations of using LLMs as reviewers and evaluators and enhances the quality of the reviewing process.
△ Less
Submitted 19 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
