# THiNK: Can Large Language Models Think-aloud?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20184 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20184/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 16 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 May 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18370/) (2024)
- [HI-TOM: A Benchmark for Evaluating Higher-Order Theory of Mind Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16755/) (2023)
- [Structured, flexible, and robust: benchmarking and improving large language models towards more human-like behavior in out-of-distribution reasoning tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05718/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models and Cognitive Science: A Comprehensive Review of Similarities, Differences, and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02387/) (2024)
- [Do LLMs Exhibit Human-Like Reasoning? Evaluating Theory of Mind in LLMs for Open-Ended Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05659/) (2024)
- [Does ChatGPT have Theory of Mind?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14020/) (2023)
- [A Systematic Assessment of OpenAI o1-Preview for Higher Order Thinking in Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21287/) (2024)
- [Psychologically-informed chain-of-thought prompts for metaphor understanding in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.08141/) (2022)
- [A Theme-Rewriting Approach for Generating Algebra Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.06210/) (2016)
- [MulCogBench: A Multi-modal Cognitive Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating Chinese and English Computational Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.01116/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Multimodal LLM-assisted Evolutionary Search for Programmatic Control Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.05433/) (2025)
- [Mechanistic Interpretability of Cognitive Complexity in LLMs via Linear Probing using Bloom's Taxonomy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17229/) (2026)
- [Presupposition and Reasoning in Conditionals: A Theory-Based Study of Humans and LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18352/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Assessing higher-order thinking skills in large language models (LLMs) remains a fundamental challenge, especially in tasks that go beyond surface-level accuracy. In this work, we propose THiNK (Testing Higher-order Notion of Knowledge), a multi-agent, feedback-driven evaluation framework grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy. THiNK frames reasoning assessment as an iterative task of problem generation, critique, and revision, encouraging LLMs to think-aloud through step-by-step reflection and refinement. This enables a systematic evaluation of both lower-order (e.g., remember, understand) and higher-order (e.g., evaluate, create) thinking skills. We apply THiNK to seven state-of-the-art LLMs and perform a detailed cognitive analysis of their outputs. Results reveal that while models reliably perform lower-order categories well, they struggle with applying knowledge in realistic contexts and exhibit limited abstraction. Structured feedback loops significantly improve reasoning performance, particularly in higher-order thinking. Qualitative evaluations further confirm that THiNK-guided outputs better align with domain logic and problem structure. The code of our framework provides a scalable methodology for probing and enhancing LLM reasoning, offering new directions for evaluation grounded in learning science, which is available at our GitHub repository.