Jingmiao Zhao

Jingmiao Zhao, Carolyn Jane Anderson

We explore the ability of large language models to solve and generate puzzles from the NPR Sunday Puzzle game show using PUZZLEQA, a dataset comprising 15 years of on-air puzzles. We evaluate four large language models using PUZZLEQA, in both multiple choice and free response formats, and explore two prompt engineering techniques to improve free response performance: chain-of-thought reasoning and prompt summarization. We find that state-of-the-art large language models can solve many PUZZLEQA puzzles: the best model, GPT-3.5, achieves 50.2% loose accuracy. However, in our few-shot puzzle generation experiment, we find no evidence that models can generate puzzles: GPT-3.5 generates puzzles with answers that do not conform to the generated rules. Puzzle generation remains a challenging task for future work.

Zixuan Wu, Francesca Lucchetti, Aleksander Boruch-Gruszecki et al.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, "PhD-level" knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark with 594 problems based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models; however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models' mistakes are easy to spot. As LLMs are more widely deployed in society, we believe it is useful to develop benchmarks for frontier models that humans can understand without the need for deep domain expertise. Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models on our benchmark, despite being on par with other models when tested on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with "I give up" before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably "uncertain" in its output and in rare cases, it does not "finish thinking," which suggests the need for techniques to "wrap up" before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.