Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs

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 2412.18011 v2 pith:WOWTMOWU submitted 2024-12-23 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsstructtestevaluationoutputsstructuredcompositionalmodelsreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) demands robust, unbiased, and scalable evaluation methods. However, human annotations are costly to scale, model-based evaluations are susceptible to stylistic biases, and target-answer-based benchmarks are vulnerable to data contamination and cheating. To address these limitations, we propose StructTest, a novel benchmark that evaluates LLMs on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs, providing an unbiased, cost-effective, and difficult-to-cheat evaluation framework. Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets. By testing structured outputs across diverse domains including Summarization, Code, HTML, and Math, and evaluating 17 popular LLMs, we demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o, establishing it as a robust proxy for measuring reasoning capabilities. We believe StructTest offers a critical and complementary approach to achieving objective and comprehensive model evaluation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The Knowledge-Reasoning Dissociation: Fundamental Limitations of LLMs in Clinical Natural Language Inference

    cs.AI 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across four clinical inference tasks, six LLMs answer paired knowledge probes at 92% accuracy but the main reasoning tasks at 25%, indicating a systematic knowledge-reasoning gap.

Pith tools