TTT-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning Ability with Simple and Novel Tic-Tac-Toe-style Games
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866915338346561536 |
|---|---|
| author | Mishra, Prakamya Liu, Jiang Wu, Jialian Yu, Xiaodong Liu, Zicheng Barsoum, Emad |
| author_facet | Mishra, Prakamya Liu, Jiang Wu, Jialian Yu, Xiaodong Liu, Zicheng Barsoum, Emad |
| contents | Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities across a broad range of tasks including Olympiad-level mathematical problems, indicating evidence of their complex reasoning abilities. While many reasoning benchmarks focus on the STEM domain, the ability of LRMs to reason correctly in broader task domains remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce \textbf{TTT-Bench}, a new benchmark that is designed to evaluate basic strategic, spatial, and logical reasoning abilities in LRMs through a suite of four two-player Tic-Tac-Toe-style games that humans can effortlessly solve from a young age. We propose a simple yet scalable programmatic approach for generating verifiable two-player game problems for TTT-Bench. Although these games are trivial for humans, they require reasoning about the intentions of the opponent, as well as the game board's spatial configurations, to ensure a win. We evaluate a diverse set of state-of-the-art LRMs, and \textbf{discover that the models that excel at hard math problems frequently fail at these simple reasoning games}. Further testing reveals that our evaluated reasoning models score on average $\downarrow$ 41\% \& $\downarrow$ 5\% lower on TTT-Bench compared to MATH 500 \& AIME 2024 respectively, with larger models achieving higher performance using shorter reasoning traces, where most of the models struggle on long-term strategic reasoning situations on simple and new TTT-Bench tasks. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2506_10209 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | TTT-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning Ability with Simple and Novel Tic-Tac-Toe-style Games Mishra, Prakamya Liu, Jiang Wu, Jialian Yu, Xiaodong Liu, Zicheng Barsoum, Emad Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities across a broad range of tasks including Olympiad-level mathematical problems, indicating evidence of their complex reasoning abilities. While many reasoning benchmarks focus on the STEM domain, the ability of LRMs to reason correctly in broader task domains remains underexplored. In this work, we introduce \textbf{TTT-Bench}, a new benchmark that is designed to evaluate basic strategic, spatial, and logical reasoning abilities in LRMs through a suite of four two-player Tic-Tac-Toe-style games that humans can effortlessly solve from a young age. We propose a simple yet scalable programmatic approach for generating verifiable two-player game problems for TTT-Bench. Although these games are trivial for humans, they require reasoning about the intentions of the opponent, as well as the game board's spatial configurations, to ensure a win. We evaluate a diverse set of state-of-the-art LRMs, and \textbf{discover that the models that excel at hard math problems frequently fail at these simple reasoning games}. Further testing reveals that our evaluated reasoning models score on average $\downarrow$ 41\% \& $\downarrow$ 5\% lower on TTT-Bench compared to MATH 500 \& AIME 2024 respectively, with larger models achieving higher performance using shorter reasoning traces, where most of the models struggle on long-term strategic reasoning situations on simple and new TTT-Bench tasks. |
| title | TTT-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning Ability with Simple and Novel Tic-Tac-Toe-style Games |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10209 |