CHAMP: A Competition-level Dataset for Fine-Grained Analyses of LLMs' Mathematical Reasoning Capabilities

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06961v2
• Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:47:26 GMT
• Title: CHAMP: A Competition-level Dataset for Fine-Grained Analyses of LLMs' Mathematical Reasoning Capabilities
• Authors: Yujun Mao, Yoon Kim, Yilun Zhou,
• Abstract summary: Concept and Hint-Annotated Math Problems (CHAMP) consists of high school math competition problems annotated with concepts. This benchmark is difficult, with the best model only scoring 58.1% in standard settings. We find that models often arrive at the correct final answer through wrong reasoning steps.
• Score: 25.857946070979576
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown indications of mathematical reasoning ability on challenging competition-level problems, especially with self-generated verbalizations of intermediate reasoning steps (i.e., chain-of-thought prompting). However, current evaluations mainly focus on the end-to-end final answer correctness, and it is unclear whether LLMs can make use of helpful side information such as problem-specific hints. In this paper, we propose a challenging benchmark dataset for enabling such analyses. The Concept and Hint-Annotated Math Problems (CHAMP) consists of high school math competition problems, annotated with concepts, or general math facts, and hints, or problem-specific tricks. These annotations allow us to explore the effects of additional information, such as relevant hints, misleading concepts, or related problems. This benchmark is difficult, with the best model only scoring 58.1% in standard settings. With concepts and hints, performance sometimes improves, indicating that some models can make use of such side information. Furthermore, we annotate model-generated solutions for their correctness. Using this corpus, we find that models often arrive at the correct final answer through wrong reasoning steps. In addition, we test whether models are able to verify these solutions, and find that most models struggle.

Related papers

• HARDMath: A Benchmark Dataset for Challenging Problems in Applied Mathematics [1.5716764919736026]
  We introduce HARDMath, a dataset featuring challenging applied mathematics problems that require analytical approximation techniques. Our framework auto-generates a large number of problems with solutions validated against numerical ground truths. We evaluate both open- and closed-source LLMs on HARDMath-mini, a sub-sampled test set of 366 problems, as well as on 40 word problems formulated in applied science contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T20:09:41Z)
• MathCAMPS: Fine-grained Synthesis of Mathematical Problems From Human Curricula [33.5782208232163]
  We propose Math CAMPS: a method to synthesize high-quality mathematical problems at scale. We encode each standard in a formal grammar, allowing us to sample diverse symbolic problems and their answers. We derive follow-up questions from symbolic structures and convert them into follow-up word problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T01:56:28Z)
• MindStar: Enhancing Math Reasoning in Pre-trained LLMs at Inference Time [51.5039731721706]
  MindStar is a purely inference-based searching method for large language models. It formulates reasoning tasks as searching problems and proposes two search ideas to identify the optimal reasoning paths. It significantly enhances the reasoning abilities of open-source models, such as Llama-2-13B and Mistral-7B, and achieves comparable performance to GPT-3.5 and Grok-1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T15:07:33Z)
• Optimizing Language Model's Reasoning Abilities with Weak Supervision [48.60598455782159]
  We present textscPuzzleBen, a weakly supervised benchmark that comprises 25,147 complex questions, answers, and human-generated rationales. A unique aspect of our dataset is the inclusion of 10,000 unannotated questions, enabling us to explore utilizing fewer supersized data to boost LLMs' inference capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:39:15Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps. We show that ReasonEval achieves state-of-the-art performance on human-labeled datasets. We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solvers [68.77382332826167]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks. One essential and frequently occurring evidence is that when the math questions are slightly changed, LLMs can behave incorrectly. This motivates us to evaluate the robustness of LLMs' math reasoning capability by testing a wide range of question variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:26:14Z)
• GeomVerse: A Systematic Evaluation of Large Models for Geometric Reasoning [17.61621287003562]
  We evaluate vision language models (VLMs) along various axes through the lens of geometry problems. We procedurally create a synthetic dataset of geometry questions with controllable difficulty levels along multiple axes. The empirical results obtained using our benchmark for state-of-the-art VLMs indicate that these models are not as capable in subjects like geometry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T15:25:39Z)
• VerityMath: Advancing Mathematical Reasoning by Self-Verification Through Unit Consistency [33.760209585322606]
  We study the performance of strong open-source LLMs on math word problems using program-based solving techniques. We propose a systematic approach by defining the units for each quantity and ensuring the consistency of these units during mathematical operations. Our approach, which incorporates unit consistency, currently slightly underperforms compared to an approach that does not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T09:06:58Z)
• Towards a Holistic Understanding of Mathematical Questions with Contrastive Pre-training [65.10741459705739]
  We propose a novel contrastive pre-training approach for mathematical question representations, namely QuesCo. We first design two-level question augmentations, including content-level and structure-level, which generate literally diverse question pairs with similar purposes. Then, to fully exploit hierarchical information of knowledge concepts, we propose a knowledge hierarchy-aware rank strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-18T14:23:29Z)
• SMART: A Situation Model for Algebra Story Problems via Attributed Grammar [74.1315776256292]
  We introduce the concept of a emphsituation model, which originates from psychology studies to represent the mental states of humans in problem-solving. We show that the proposed model outperforms all previous neural solvers by a large margin while preserving much better interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-27T21:03:40Z)

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.