Article
FINAL Bench: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
•
14
VIDRAFT_LAB
SeaWolf-AI
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
updated
a Space about 3 hours ago
FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard replied to their post about 19 hours ago
FINAL Bench Released: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive](https://huggingface.co/datasets/FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
```python
from datasets import load_dataset
dataset = load_dataset("FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive", split="train")
```
Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
replied to their post about 19 hours ago
FINAL Bench Released: The Real Bottleneck to AGI Is Self-Correction
We release FINAL Bench, the first benchmark for measuring functional metacognition in LLMs — the ability to detect and correct one's own reasoning errors. Every existing benchmark measures final-answer accuracy. None measures whether AI knows it is wrong.
Dataset: [FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive](https://huggingface.co/datasets/FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive) | 100 Tasks | 15 Domains | 8 TICOS Types | Apache 2.0
Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/FINAL-Bench/Leaderboard
Article: https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/metacognitive
Core Innovation
Our 5-axis rubric separates what no prior benchmark could: MA (Metacognitive Accuracy) — the ability to say "I might be wrong", and ER (Error Recovery) — the ability to actually fix it. This maps directly to the monitoring-control model of Nelson & Narens (1990) in cognitive psychology.
Three Findings Across 9 SOTA Models
We evaluated GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, Kimi K2.5, and others across 100 expert-level tasks:
1. ER Dominance. 94.8% of MetaCog gain comes from Error Recovery alone. The bottleneck to AGI is not knowledge or reasoning — it is self-correction.
2. Declarative-Procedural Gap. All 9 models can verbalize uncertainty (MA = 0.694) but cannot act on it (ER = 0.302). They sound humble but fail to self-correct — the most dangerous AI safety profile.
3. Difficulty Effect. Harder tasks benefit dramatically more from metacognition (Pearson r = -0.777, p < 0.001).
```python
from datasets import load_dataset
dataset = load_dataset("FINAL-Bench/Metacognitive", split="train")
```
Paper: FINAL Bench: Measuring Functional Metacognitive Reasoning in LLMs
FINAL Bench is the first tool to tell apart what AI truly knows from what it merely pretends to know.
Organizations
published an
article 3 days ago