Safoora Yousefi

Vidhisha Balachandran, Jingya Chen, Neel Joshi et al. · cmu

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

Marah Abdin, Sahaj Agarwal, Ahmed Awadallah et al. · cmu

We introduce Phi-4-reasoning, a 14-billion parameter reasoning model that achieves strong performance on complex reasoning tasks. Trained via supervised fine-tuning of Phi-4 on carefully curated set of "teachable" prompts-selected for the right level of complexity and diversity-and reasoning demonstrations generated using o3-mini, Phi-4-reasoning generates detailed reasoning chains that effectively leverage inference-time compute. We further develop Phi-4-reasoning-plus, a variant enhanced through a short phase of outcome-based reinforcement learning that offers higher performance by generating longer reasoning traces. Across a wide range of reasoning tasks, both models outperform significantly larger open-weight models such as DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B model and approach the performance levels of full DeepSeek-R1 model. Our comprehensive evaluations span benchmarks in math and scientific reasoning, coding, algorithmic problem solving, planning, and spatial understanding. Interestingly, we observe a non-trivial transfer of improvements to general-purpose benchmarks as well. In this report, we provide insights into our training data, our training methodologies, and our evaluations. We show that the benefit of careful data curation for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) extends to reasoning language models, and can be further amplified by reinforcement learning (RL). Finally, our evaluation points to opportunities for improving how we assess the performance and robustness of reasoning models.

Vidhisha Balachandran, Jingya Chen, Lingjiao Chen et al. · cmu

Inference-time scaling can enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) on complex problems that benefit from step-by-step problem solving. Although lengthening generated scratchpads has proven effective for mathematical tasks, the broader impact of this approach on other tasks remains less clear. In this work, we investigate the benefits and limitations of scaling methods across nine state-of-the-art models and eight challenging tasks, including math and STEM reasoning, calendar planning, NP-hard problems, navigation, and spatial reasoning. We compare conventional models (e.g., GPT-4o) with models fine-tuned for inference-time scaling (e.g., o1) through evaluation protocols that involve repeated model calls, either independently or sequentially with feedback. These evaluations approximate lower and upper performance bounds and potential for future performance improvements for each model, whether through enhanced training or multi-model inference systems. Our extensive empirical analysis reveals that the advantages of inference-time scaling vary across tasks and diminish as problem complexity increases. In addition, simply using more tokens does not necessarily translate to higher accuracy in these challenging regimes. Results from multiple independent runs with conventional models using perfect verifiers show that, for some tasks, these models can achieve performance close to the average performance of today's most advanced reasoning models. However, for other tasks, a significant performance gap remains, even in very high scaling regimes. Encouragingly, all models demonstrate significant gains when inference is further scaled with perfect verifiers or strong feedback, suggesting ample potential for future improvements.

Mazda Moayeri, Vidhisha Balachandran, Varun Chandrasekaran et al. · cmu

With models getting stronger, evaluations have grown more complex, testing multiple skills in one benchmark and even in the same instance at once. However, skill-wise performance is obscured when inspecting aggregate accuracy, under-utilizing the rich signal modern benchmarks contain. We propose an automatic approach to recover the underlying skills relevant for any evaluation instance, by way of inspecting model-generated rationales. After validating the relevance of rationale-parsed skills and inferring skills for $46$k instances over $12$ benchmarks, we observe many skills to be common across benchmarks, resulting in the curation of hundreds of skill-slices (i.e. sets of instances testing a common skill). Inspecting accuracy over these slices yields novel insights on model trade-offs: e.g., compared to GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, on average, Gemini 1.5 Pro is $18\%$ more accurate in "computing molar mass", but $19\%$ less accurate in "applying constitutional law", despite the overall accuracies of the three models differing by a mere $0.4\%$. Furthermore, we demonstrate the practical utility of our approach by showing that insights derived from skill slice analysis can generalize to held-out instances: when routing each instance to the model strongest on the relevant skills, we see a $3\%$ accuracy improvement over our $12$ dataset corpus. Our skill-slices and framework open a new avenue in model evaluation, leveraging skill-specific analyses to unlock a more granular and actionable understanding of model capabilities.