Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs

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

arxiv 2406.13975 v3 pith:EUN5ZF2J submitted 2024-06-20 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords meta-reasoningmodelsmr-benbenchmarkllmsreasoningevaluatinghuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making, largely based on the step-by-step chain-of-thought reasoning processes. However, evaluating these reasoning abilities has become increasingly challenging. Existing outcome-based benchmarks are beginning to saturate, becoming less effective in tracking meaningful progress. To address this, we present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill, where LMs are asked to locate and analyse potential errors in automatically generated reasoning steps. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking, mirroring the human cognitive process of carefully examining assumptions, conditions, calculations, and logic to identify mistakes.MR-Ben comprises 5,975 questions curated by human experts across a wide range of subjects, including physics, chemistry, logic, coding, and more. Through our designed metrics for assessing meta-reasoning on this benchmark, we identify interesting limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs (open-source and closed-source models). For example, with models like the o1 series from OpenAI demonstrating strong performance by effectively scrutinizing the solution space, many other state-of-the-art models fall significantly behind on MR-Ben, exposing potential shortcomings in their training strategies and inference methodologies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Spoken Mathematical Reasoning: Benchmarking Speech-based Models over Multi-faceted Math Problems

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new spoken math benchmark, Spoken-MQA, shows that current speech-based AI models reason poorly from spoken math input, especially for arithmetic and knowledge-heavy problems.

  2. Does Learning Mathematical Problem-Solving Generalize to Broader Reasoning?

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Long chain-of-thought and RL training on math problems improves general reasoning benchmarks, while short chain-of-thought math fine-tuning often degrades performance.

Pith tools