Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.02143v3
• Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 05:49:50 GMT
• Title: Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators
• Authors: Yiming Huang, Zhenghao Lin, Xiao Liu, Yeyun Gong, Shuai Lu, Fangyu Lei, Yaobo Liang, Yelong Shen, Chen Lin, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen,
• Abstract summary: This paper aims to evaluate the reasoning capacities of large language models (LLMs) in solving recent programming problems in Codeforces. We first provide a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's peiceived zero-shot performance on this task, considering various aspects such as problems' release time, difficulties, and types of errors encountered. Surprisingly, theThoughtived performance of GPT-4 has experienced a cliff like decline in problems after September 2021 consistently across all the difficulties and types of problems.
• Score: 121.15880285283116
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, yet there is ongoing debate about these abilities and the potential data contamination problem recently. This paper aims to evaluate the reasoning capacities of LLMs, specifically in solving recent competition-level programming problems in Codeforces, which are expert-crafted and unique, requiring deep understanding and robust reasoning skills. We first provide a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's peiceived zero-shot performance on this task, considering various aspects such as problems' release time, difficulties, and types of errors encountered. Surprisingly, the peiceived performance of GPT-4 has experienced a cliff like decline in problems after September 2021 consistently across all the difficulties and types of problems, which shows the potential data contamination, as well as the challenges for any existing LLM to solve unseen complex reasoning problems. We further explore various approaches such as fine-tuning, Chain-of-Thought prompting and problem description simplification, unfortunately none of them is able to consistently mitigate the challenges. Through our work, we emphasis the importance of this excellent data source for assessing the genuine reasoning capabilities of LLMs, and foster the development of LLMs with stronger reasoning abilities and better generalization in the future.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Have the Generalization Ability in Conducting Causal Inference? [19.358700891320044]
  We evaluate the generalization capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) concerning unseen phenomena. LLMs exhibit good generalization performance in solving simple CP, FI, and complex CI questions. When the names of phenomena incorporate existing terms, their generalization performance can still be hindered by interference from familiar terms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T08:23:31Z)
• ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection [60.297079601066784]
  We introduce ErrorRadar, the first benchmark designed to assess MLLMs' capabilities in error detection. ErrorRadar evaluates two sub-tasks: error step identification and error categorization. It consists of 2,500 high-quality multimodal K-12 mathematical problems, collected from real-world student interactions. Results indicate significant challenges still remain, as GPT-4o with best performance is still around 10% behind human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T14:59:09Z)
• SUPER: Evaluating Agents on Setting Up and Executing Tasks from Research Repositories [55.161075901665946]
  Super aims to capture the realistic challenges faced by researchers working with Machine Learning (ML) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) research repositories. Our benchmark comprises three distinct problem sets: 45 end-to-end problems with annotated expert solutions, 152 sub problems derived from the expert set that focus on specific challenges, and 602 automatically generated problems for larger-scale development. We show that state-of-the-art approaches struggle to solve these problems with the best model (GPT-4o) solving only 16.3% of the end-to-end set, and 46.1% of the scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:37:48Z)
• Exposing the Achilles' Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning [11.63133816413199]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to Math Word Problems (MWPs) We introduce a novel dataset MWP-MISTAKE, incorporating MWPs with both correct and incorrect reasoning steps generated through rule-based methods and smaller language models. We highlight GPT-$o's superior performance in mistake detection and rectification and the persistent challenges faced by smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T08:06:05Z)
• PECC: Problem Extraction and Coding Challenges [3.287942619833188]
  We introduce PECC, a novel benchmark derived from Advent Of Code (AoC) challenges and Project Euler. Unlike conventional benchmarks, PECC requires LLMs to interpret narrative-embedded problems, extract requirements, and generate code. Results show varying model performance between narrative and neutral problems, with specific challenges in the Euler math-based subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:02:14Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
  We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets. We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
• Towards leveraging LLMs for Conditional QA [1.9649272351760063]
  This study delves into the capabilities and limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the challenging domain of conditional question-answering. Our findings reveal that fine-tuned LLMs can surpass the state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance in some cases, even without fully encoding all input context. These models encounter challenges in extractive question answering, where they lag behind the SOTA by over 10 points, and in mitigating the risk of injecting false information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-02T14:02:52Z)
• Decoding Stumpers: Large Language Models vs. Human Problem-Solvers [14.12892960275563]
  We compare the performance of four state-of-the-art Large Language Models to human participants. New-generation LLMs excel in solving stumpers and surpass human performance. Humans exhibit superior skills in verifying solutions to the same problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T06:54:39Z)
• Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies [104.32199881187607]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide array of NLP tasks. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is self-correction, where the LLM itself is prompted or guided to fix problems in its own output. This paper presents a comprehensive review of this emerging class of techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T18:38:52Z)
• SciBench: Evaluating College-Level Scientific Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models [70.5763210869525]
  We introduce an expansive benchmark suite SciBench for Large Language Model (LLM) SciBench contains a dataset featuring a range of collegiate-level scientific problems from mathematics, chemistry, and physics domains. The results reveal that the current LLMs fall short of delivering satisfactory performance, with the best overall score of merely 43.22%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T07:01:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.