Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

MastermindEval: A Simple But Scalable Reasoning Benchmark

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 2503.05891 v4 pith:ENOWUMZP submitted 2025-03-07 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords modelsreasoningbenchmarkevaluationgamemodelscalablebeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have led to remarkable performance across a wide range of language understanding and mathematical tasks. As a result, increasing attention has been given to assessing the true reasoning capabilities of LLMs, driving research into commonsense, numerical, logical, and qualitative reasoning. However, with the rapid progress of reasoning-focused models such as OpenAI's o1 and DeepSeek's R1, there has been a growing demand for reasoning benchmarks that can keep pace with ongoing model developments. In this paper, we introduce MastermindEval, a simple, scalable, and interpretable deductive reasoning benchmark inspired by the board game Mastermind. Our benchmark supports two evaluation paradigms: (1) agentic evaluation, in which the model autonomously plays the game, and (2) deductive reasoning evaluation, in which the model is given a pre-played game state with only one possible valid code to infer. In our experimental results we (1) find that even easy Mastermind instances are difficult for current models and (2) demonstrate that the benchmark is scalable to possibly more advanced models in the future Furthermore, we investigate possible reasons why models cannot deduce the final solution and find that current models are limited in deducing the concealed code as the number of statement to combine information from is increasing.

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. Reasoning Beyond the Obvious: Evaluating Divergent and Convergent Thinking in LLMs for Financial Scenarios

    cs.AI 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    ConDiFi is a finance benchmark claiming to measure both divergent and convergent thinking in 14 LLMs, but its questions, ground-truth labels, and scores are all produced by GPT-4o, one of the evaluated models.

  2. Nature's Insight: A Novel Framework and Comprehensive Analysis of Agentic Reasoning Through the Lens of Neuroscience

    q-bio.NC 2025-05 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A survey and taxonomy that organizes AI agentic reasoning into four neuroscience-inspired categories without introducing new empirical results.

Pith tools