Skip to content

Thematic Generalization Benchmark: measures how effectively various LLMs can infer a narrow or specific "theme" (category/rule) from a small set of examples and anti-examples, then detect which item truly fits that theme among a collection of misleading candidates.

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

lechmazur/generalization

Repository files navigation

LLM Thematic Generalization Benchmark

This benchmark measures how effectively various LLMs can infer a narrow or specific "theme" (category/rule) from a small set of examples and anti-examples, then detect which item truly fits that theme among a collection of misleading candidates. The overall process involves generating themes, creating examples and anti-examples, filtering out low-quality data via a "double-check" step, and finally prompting LLMs to score the real example among several distractors.


Visualizations

1. Average Rank of the Correct Example

Correct rank This chart displays, for each model, the average rank that model assigns to the true example (when placed among seven distractors). Ranks range from 1 (top score) to 8 (lowest).

  • Smaller values indicate better performance, because it means the correct example is consistently placed near the top.
  • A bar height of 2.0 would mean that on average, the leftover correct item was the second-highest-scored candidate.

2. Distribution of Ranks

Model Rank Distribution A more granular view of the ranks each model assigns to the leftover correct example per file, showing how stable or varied those ranks are across different themes.

3. Model–Model Correlation

Model–Model Correlation A correlation matrix based on how similarly two models assign a “difference score” to the correct vs. anti-examples. It highlights which LLMs behave similarly or deviate significantly.

4. How Often the Correct Example is the Highest Score

Correct Highest A stacked bar chart indicating how frequently each model places the real leftover example strictly at the top (or tied for top). This quickly shows which LLMs are best at ensuring the real item is #1 vs. merely near the top.


Leaderboard

Rank Model Avg Rank Skipped/Total
1 Claude Opus 4.1 (no reasoning) 1.69 0/810
2 Claude Opus 4 Thinking 16K 1.69 0/810
3 Claude Sonnet 4 Thinking 16K 1.69 0/810
4 Claude Opus 4.1 Thinking 16K 1.70 0/810
5 Claude Opus 4 (no reasoning) 1.70 0/810
6 Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking 16K 1.73 0/810
7 Claude Sonnet 4 Thinking 64K 1.74 0/810
8 Gemini 2.5 Pro 1.74 0/810
9 DeepSeek R1 05/28 1.74 0/810
10 DeepSeek V3.1 Non-Think 1.75 0/810
11 Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 1.75 0/810
12 Sonoma Sky Alpha 1.77 0/810
13 Gemini 2.5 Pro 1.79 0/810
14 GPT-5 (medium reasoning) 1.79 0/810
15 Grok 4 Fast Reasoning 1.79 0/810
16 DeepSeek V3.1 Reasoner 1.80 0/810
17 GLM-4.5 1.80 0/810
18 o1 (medium reasoning) 1.80 0/810
19 o4-mini (medium reasoning) 1.80 0/810
20 DeepSeek R1 1.80 0/810
21 Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 24K 1.81 0/810
22 o3 (high reasoning) 1.82 0/810
23 o3-pro (medium reasoning) 1.82 0/810
24 o4-mini (high reasoning) 1.82 0/810
25 o3 (medium reasoning) 1.83 0/810
26 Gemini 2.0 Flash Think Exp 01-21 1.84 0/810
27 o3-mini (high reasoning) 1.84 0/810
28 Qwen 3 235B A22B 25-07 Think 1.84 0/810
29 o3-mini (medium reasoning) 1.85 0/810
30 GPT-OSS-120B 1.87 0/810
31 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 1.88 0/810
32 Grok 4 1.88 0/810
33 Claude Sonnet 4 (no reasoning) 1.89 0/810
34 Gemini 2.0 Pro Exp 02-05 1.89 0/810
35 Grok 3 Mini Beta (high reasoning) 1.89 0/810
36 Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Exp Old 1.90 0/810
37 GPT-5 mini (medium reasoning) 1.90 0/810
38 Grok 3 Mini Beta (low) 1.90 0/810
39 Qwen 3 235B A22B 1.90 0/810
40 GPT-4.5 Preview 1.93 0/810
41 Qwen QwQ-32B 16K 1.93 8/810
42 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 2024-10-22 1.93 0/810
43 Kimi K2 1.94 0/810
44 DeepSeek V3-0324 1.95 0/810
45 o1-mini 1.95 0/810
46 GPT-4o 2024-08-06 1.96 0/810
47 GPT-4o Mar 2025 1.97 0/810
48 Qwen 3 235B A22B 25-07 Instruct 1.97 1/810
49 GPT-4o Feb 2025 2.00 0/810
50 Gemini 2.0 Flash 2.00 0/810
51 Gemini 2.0 Flash Exp 2.00 0/810
52 Qwen 3 Next 80B A3B Thinking 2.01 13/810
53 Grok 4 Fast Non-Reasoning 2.02 6/810
54 Kimi K2-0905 2.02 0/810
55 LongCat Flash Chat 2.02 6/810
56 DeepSeek V3 2.03 0/810
57 Sonoma Dusk Alpha 2.03 0/810
58 Llama 4 Maverick 2.04 0/810
59 Qwen 3 Max Preview 2.04 0/810
60 Qwen QwQ-32B Preview 2.05 280/810
61 Grok 3 Beta (no reasoning) 2.07 0/810
62 Llama 3.1 405B 2.08 0/810
63 Qwen 2.5 Max 2.08 2/810
64 Qwen 3 30B A3B 2.09 0/810
65 Microsoft Phi-4 2.10 0/810
66 Mistral Large 2 2.11 0/810
67 Amazon Nova Pro 2.11 0/810
68 Llama 3.3 70B 2.12 0/810
69 Mistral Medium 3 2.12 0/810
70 Gemini 1.5 Pro (Sept) 2.13 0/810
71 Mistral Small 3.2 2.14 0/810
72 Baidu Ernie 4.5 300B A47B 2.15 0/810
73 GPT-OSS-20B 2.18 0/810
74 Gemma 3 27B 2.21 0/810
75 Grok 2 12-12 2.21 0/810
76 Qwen 2.5 72B 2.21 0/810
77 Claude 3.5 Haiku 2.25 0/810
78 Mistral Small 3 2.25 0/810
79 MiniMax-Text-01 2.28 0/810
80 GPT-4o mini 2.30 0/810
81 GLM4-32B-0414 2.35 0/810
82 Gemma 2 27B 2.60 0/810
  • Avg Rank is the mean ranking assigned to the correct example across 810 test files.
  • Skipped indicates how many outputs failed to parse or didn’t follow the required output format (e.g., missing and tags).

Benchmark Method in Detail

  1. Theme & Example Creation

    We prompt high-quality LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Grok 2, Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3) to generate 2,000 unique, succinct “themes” that foucs on a narrow concept. Each is based on a random trio of starting points, ensuring novelty.

  2. Gather Examples & Anti-Examples

    For each theme, we then request four <example> entries that specifically fit it, plus 20 <anti_example> entries that could belong to a broader or partially overlapping category but do not fit the exact theme.

  3. Quality Check (“Double Check”)

    • We create specialized prompts that ask LLMs to score how well each of the four real examples (#1–4) matches the theme, and how well each of the twenty anti-examples (#5–24) fits the notion of being “broader or related but not the theme.”
    • We parse these 24 numeric scores (per file, per LLM), computing standardized z-scores. If a real example scores poorly (z < -2.5) or if the top anti-examples fail to show sufficiently high “anti-example” scores, that file is discarded.
    • From the initial 2,000 sets, we end up retaining 810 sets (themes + examples + anti-examples).
  4. Final “Pick” Challenge

    • From each of the 810 validated sets, the final prompt includes 3 real examples + 3 anti-examples as context.
    • The fourth real example is hidden among 7 top "misleading" anti-examples (8 total)
    • We then prompt 26 different LLMs to assign a 0–10 score to each of these 8 candidates. A perfect approach would always rank the correct example #1.
  5. Result Analysis

    • If a model consistently places the real leftover example at or near the top, it implies strong thematic generalization.
    • We compile the results into multiple stats, including average rank, difference vs. the anti-example average, fraction of times the real item is top, etc.

Examples

862

Examples: mathematical models, decision trees, flowcharts

Anti-examples: diagrams, maps, blueprints

Candidates:

  1. checklists
  2. spreadsheets
  3. weather forecasts
  4. mind mapping <- correct pick
  5. road signs
  6. instruction manuals
  7. summaries
  8. outlines

Theme: "Concepts or systems that involve solving complex problems through simplification or abstraction"

376

Examples: clay pot, bamboo sieve, calabash gourd spoon

Anti-examples: plastic serving spoon, rubber spatula, plastic strainer

Candidates:

  1. cast iron skillet
  2. wooden mortar <- correct pick
  3. nylon cooking utensils
  4. ceramic bowl
  5. stone grinding wheel
  6. porcelain plate
  7. silicone baking mat
  8. bamboo steamer basket

Theme: "Tools or implements traditionally used in West African food preparation that are made primarily from a single, naturally occurring material."


Note

Note that in general "verification vs. generation complexity asymmetry notions continue to hold empirically when replacing tailored algorithms with Language Models (LMs)" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16831v1). "An LLM may be able to perform individual steps in a task, e.g. evidence verification, more accurately than the LLM can perform an entire task" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00024). Verification tends to require fewer resources or simpler reasoning, so even very complex AI-generated benchmark items can be checked for correctness by another model with relative ease.

In our benchmark, it's trivial for top LLMs to see if an example or counterexample fits a known theme. But hide the theme, and generalizing from a few examples to one underlying concept, then picking among adversarial alternatives, gets way harder. This asymmetry lets us use LLMs for both creating and evaluating benchmark items.

We also checked for self-grading bias. None detected.


Other multi-agent benchmarks

Other benchmarks


Updates

  • Sep 22, 2025: DeepSeek V3.1, Grok 4 Fast, Qwen 3 Next 80B A3B Thinking, Kimi K2-0905, LongCat Flash Chat, Qwen 3 Max Preview added.
  • Aug 7, 2025: GPT-5 added.
  • Aug 5, 2025: Claude Opus 4.1, GPT-OSS-120B, GPT-OSS-20B added.
  • July 31, 2025: Qwen 3 235B A22B 25-07 Thinking, GLM-4.5 added.
  • July 14, 2024: Kimi K2 added.
  • July 10, 2025: Grok 4, GLM4-32B-0414, Baidu Ernie 4.5 300B A47B, Mistral Small 3.2 added.
  • June 11, 2025: o3-pro added.
  • June 5, 2025: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05 added.
  • May 28, 2025: DeepSeek R1 05/28 added.
  • May 22, 2025: Claude 4 models added.
  • May 7, 2025: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-06 and Mistral Medium 3 added.
  • Apr 30, 2025: Qwen 3 added.
  • Apr 18, 2025: o3, o4-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash added.
  • Apr 11, 2025: Grok 3 added.
  • Apr 6, 2025: Llama 4 Maverick added.
  • Mar 28, 2025: GPT-4o March 2025 added.
  • Mar 26, 2025: Gemini 2.5 Pro Exp 03-25, DeepSeek V3-0324, o3-mini-high added.
  • Mar 14, 2025: Gemma 3 27B added.
  • Mar 8, 2025: Qwen QwQ-32B added.
  • Feb 27, 2025: GPT-4.5 Preview added.
  • Feb 25, 2025: Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, GPT-4o Feb 2025, Gemini 2.0 Pro Exp 02-05, Gemini 2.0 Flash added.
  • Feb 4, 2025: DeepSeek R1, o3-mini (medium reasoning effort), Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking Exp 01-21, Qwen 2.5 Max, Microsoft Phi-4, Amazon Nova Pro, Mistral Small 3, MiniMax-Text-01 added.
  • Follow @lechmazur on X (Twitter) for other upcoming benchmarks and more.

About

Thematic Generalization Benchmark: measures how effectively various LLMs can infer a narrow or specific "theme" (category/rule) from a small set of examples and anti-examples, then detect which item truly fits that theme among a collection of misleading candidates.

Topics

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

No releases published

Packages

No packages published