Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them
Open accessAbstract
BIG-Bench (Srivastava et al., 2022) is a diverse evaluation suite that focuses on tasks believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. Language models have already made good progress on this benchmark, with the best model in the BIG-Bench paper outperforming average reported human-rater results on 65% of the BIG-Bench tasks via few-shot prompting. But on what tasks do language models fall short of average human-rater performance, and are those tasks actually unsolvable by current language models? In this work, we focus on a suite of 23 challenging BIG-Bench tasks which we call BIG-Bench Hard (BBH). These are the task for which prior language model evaluations did not outperform the average human-rater. We find that applying chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting to BBH tasks enables PaLM to surpass the average human-rater performance on 10 of the 23 tasks, and Codex (code-davinci-002) to surpass the average human-rater performance on 17 of the 23 tasks. Since many tasks in BBH require multi-step reasoning, few-shot prompting without CoT, as done in the BIG-Bench evaluations (Srivastava et al., 2022), substantially underestimates the best performance and capabilities of language models, which is better captured via CoT prompting. As further analysis, we explore the interaction between CoT and model scale on BBH, finding that CoT enables emergent task performance on several BBH tasks with otherwise flat scaling curves.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
BIG-Bench Hard is a set of 23 multiple-choice tasks from BIG-Bench on which current state-of-the-art models do substantially worse than the average human rater.
“BIG-Bench Hard (BBH; Suzgun et al., 2022) is a set of 23 multiple-choice tasks from the BIG-Bench benchmark (Srivastava et al., 2022), on which current state-of-the-art models do substantially worse than the average human rater.”
From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2022
Section 2, “BIG-Bench Hard,” identifies BBH as 23 BIG-Bench tasks selected because no previously reported model result exceeded the average human-rater score. But the Tasks Criteria table includes tasks evaluated by either multiple choice or exact match, not exclusively multiple-choice tasks. The paper’s Table 2 also reports that some models using chain-of-thought prompting exceeded the human-rater average, so the performance claim needs its prior-results qualification. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredResearchers are developing synthetic challenging benchmarks, often involving models in the construction of evaluation instances, such as subsampling instances from existing benchmarks that cannot be solved by current models or augmenting them to construct more challenging evaluations.
“For example, some subsample instances from existing benchmarks that cannot be solved by current models [93, 82], or augment them to construct more challenging evaluations [21, 44, 49].”
From SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientists (2024) · cites this paper as [82]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStandard evaluation benchmarks focus predominantly on performance metrics like exact match, leaving prompt sensitivity sidelined.
“Despite prompt sensitivity being a crucial aspect for assessing the usability of an LLM, standard evaluation benchmarks such as MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021) or BBH (Suzgun et al., 2022) focus predominantly on performance metrics like exact match, leaving prompt sensitivity sidelined.”
From POSIX: A Prompt Sensitivity Index For Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Suzgun et al., 2022
The Evaluation protocol states that BBH measures accuracy by exact match, supporting the performance-metric part of the claim. But §3 (Experimental Setup) compares answer-only and chain-of-thought prompting, and §4.1 reports that prompt instructions and answer options affect results. The paper does not establish that prompt sensitivity is wholly sidelined. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPopular tests such as MMLU, BIG-Bench, BIG-Bench Hard, or AGIEval are typically based on human ability tasks but test for knowledge recall or problem-solving, often by comparing performance against human experts doing the same tasks.
“Popular tests, such as MMLU (137), BIG-Bench (138), BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) (139), or AGIEval (140) are typically based on human ability tasks (137) but test for knowledge recall or problem-solving (141), often by comparing performance against human experts doing the same tasks (138).”
From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [139]
In long-context applications such as legal analysis, healthcare, and education, documents from a common pool are often reused across prompts.
“Additionally, in long-context applications such as legal analysis [10], healthcare [50], and education [47], documents from a common pool are often reused across prompts.”
From HotPrefix: Hotness-Aware KV Cache Scheduling for Efficient Prefix Sharing in LLM Inference Systems (2025) · cites this paper as [50]
The Experimental Setup (p. 4) describes few-shot examples used in benchmark prompts, not documents reused across prompts in educational applications. Searches for education and shared long-context documents found no passage in our copy addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 44
- Authors
- Suzgun, M., Scales, N., Schärli, N., Gehrmann, S., Tay, Y., Chung, H. W., Chowdhery, A., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Zhou, D., & Wei, J.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2210.09261
- OpenAlex
- W4306808908
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- BIG-Bench, chain-of-thought prompting, language model evaluation, multi-step reasoning, Arecaceae, codices, few-shot prompting, model scaling, emergent capabilities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
