Ziang Li

Linjie Li, Mahtab Bigverdi, Jiawei Gu et al.

Spatial cognition is essential for human intelligence, enabling problem-solving through visual simulations rather than solely relying on verbal reasoning. However, existing AI benchmarks primarily assess verbal reasoning, neglecting the complexities of non-verbal, multi-step visual simulation. We introduce STARE(Spatial Transformations and Reasoning Evaluation), a benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate multimodal large language models on tasks better solved through multi-step visual simulation. STARE features 4K tasks spanning foundational geometric transformations (2D and 3D), integrated spatial reasoning (cube net folding and tangram puzzles), and real-world spatial reasoning (perspective and temporal reasoning), reflecting practical cognitive challenges like object assembly, mechanical diagram interpretation, and everyday spatial navigation. Our evaluations show that models excel at reasoning over simpler 2D transformations, but perform close to random chance on more complex tasks like 3D cube net folding and tangram puzzles that require multi-step visual simulations. Humans achieve near-perfect accuracy but take considerable time (up to 28.9s) on complex tasks, significantly speeding up (down by 7.5 seconds on average) with intermediate visual simulations. In contrast, models exhibit inconsistent performance gains from visual simulations, improving on most tasks but declining in specific cases like tangram puzzles (GPT-4o, o1) and cube net folding (Claude-3.5, Gemini-2.0 Flash), indicating that models may not know how to effectively leverage intermediate visual information.

Ziang Li, Manasi Ganti, Zixian Ma et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often generate natural language rationales -- free-form explanations that help improve performance on complex reasoning tasks and enhance interpretability for human users. However, evaluating these rationales remains challenging. While recent work has relied on binary preference judgments from humans or LLM judges, such evaluations are often opaque and coarse-grained, offering limited insight into what makes one rationale better than another. In this work, we rethink preference evaluation for LLM-generated rationales by asking: (1) What attributes define good rationales? (2) Can human preferences be explained by these attributes? (3) Can attribute-based evaluation overcome the limitations of binary comparisons? We identify a set of key rationale attributes from prior literature and assess them using automatic metrics, LLM judgments, and human annotations. We then analyze two standard human preference datasets MT Bench and Chatbot Arena using SHAP to identify which attributes best explain human preference outcomes. Finally, we re-evaluate model-generated rationales using attribute-specific ELO scores, revealing more nuanced model comparisons and insights. Our findings suggest that fine-grained attribute evaluations can better characterize rationale quality and guide future research toward more interpretable and reliable evaluation practices.