As LLMs continuously evolve, there is an urgent need for a reliable evaluation method that delivers trustworthy results promptly. Currently, static benchmarks suffer from inflexibility and unreliability, leading users to prefer human voting platforms like Chatbot Arena. However, human evaluations require significant manual effort. Therefore, we propose Auto-Arena, an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. Firstly, an LLM examiner generates questions. Then, two LLM candidates engage in a multi-round peer battle based on the questions, aiming at revealing their true performance differences. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collaboratively discusses and decides the winner, reducing bias and enhancing fairness. During the peer battles, we observe intriguing scenarios where the LLM candidates display competitive behaviors and learn from the opponents. In our extensive experiments involving 15 recent LLMs, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks without any manual efforts. Auto-Arena offers a promising alternative to current human evaluation platforms for evaluating LLMs automatically.

Many challenging reasoning tasks require not just rapid, intuitive responses, but a more deliberate, multi-step approach. Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) highlights an important shift from the “System 1” way of quick reactions to the “System 2” style of reflection-and-correction problem solving. However, current benchmarks heavily rely on the final-answer accuracy, leaving much of a model’s intermediate reasoning steps unexamined. This fails to assess the model’s ability to reflect and rectify mistakes within the reasoning process. To bridge this gap, we introduce FINEREASON, a logic-puzzle benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs’ reasoning capabilities. Each puzzle can be decomposed into atomic steps, making it ideal for rigorous validation of intermediate correctness. Building on this, we introduce two tasks: state checking and state transition, for a comprehensive evaluation of how models assess the current situation and plan the next move. To support broader research, we also provide a puzzle training set aimed at enhancing general reasoning. We show that models trained on our state checking and transition data demonstrate gains in mathematical reasoning by up to 5.1%.