LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05194v1
• Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:21:26 GMT
• Title: LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs
• Authors: Arash Gholami Davoodi, Seyed Pouyan Mousavi Davoudi, Pouya Pezeshkpour,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning. We present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that offers 1,958 questions. We find that the most advanced model, GPT-4, achieved a mere 54% accuracy in a multiple-choice scenario.
• Score: 8.89259409245068
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning. However, despite these achievements, current evaluations are mostly limited to specific mathematical topics, and it remains unclear whether LLMs are genuinely engaging in reasoning. To address these gaps, we present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that offers 1,958 questions across a wide array of mathematical subjects, each paired with a detailed hierarchical chain of topics. Upon assessing different LLMs using the MaTT benchmark, we find that the most advanced model, GPT-4, achieved a mere 54\% accuracy in a multiple-choice scenario. Interestingly, even when employing Chain-of-Thought prompting, we observe mostly no notable improvement. Moreover, LLMs accuracy dramatically reduced by up to 24.2 percentage point when the questions were presented without providing choices. Further detailed analysis of the LLMs' performance across a range of topics showed significant discrepancy even for closely related subtopics within the same general mathematical area. In an effort to pinpoint the reasons behind LLMs performances, we conducted a manual evaluation of the completeness and correctness of the explanations generated by GPT-4 when choices were available. Surprisingly, we find that in only 53.3\% of the instances where the model provided a correct answer, the accompanying explanations were deemed complete and accurate, i.e., the model engaged in genuine reasoning.

Related papers

• CLR-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models in College-level Reasoning [17.081788240112417]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their remarkable performance across various language understanding tasks. We present CLR-Bench to comprehensively evaluate the LLMs in complex college-level reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T04:55:08Z)
• MathHay: An Automated Benchmark for Long-Context Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs [61.74749961334557]
  MathHay is an automated benchmark designed to assess the long-context mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We conduct extensive experiments on MathHay to assess the long-context mathematical reasoning abilities of eight top-performing models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:07Z)
• Not All LLM Reasoners Are Created Equal [58.236453890457476]
  We study the depth of grade-school math problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. We evaluate their performance on pairs of existing math word problems together.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T17:01:10Z)
• Can LLMs Master Math? Investigating Large Language Models on Math Stack Exchange [25.419977967846144]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in various natural language tasks. This paper explores the current limitations of LLMs in navigating complex mathematical problem-solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T12:48:31Z)
• MathVerse: Does Your Multi-modal LLM Truly See the Diagrams in Visual Math Problems? [99.0305256706604]
  We introduce MathVerse, an all-around visual math benchmark designed for an equitable and in-depth evaluation of MLLMs. We meticulously collect 2,612 high-quality, multi-subject math problems with diagrams from publicly available sources. This approach allows MathVerse to comprehensively assess whether and how much MLLMs can truly understand the visual diagrams for mathematical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T17:59:50Z)
• 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)
• Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs [52.42505579545893]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought explanations alongside answers. We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:22:56Z)
• Self-Discover: Large Language Models Self-Compose Reasoning Structures [136.48389510481758]
  We introduce SELF-DISCOVER, a framework for self-discovering task-intrinsic reasoning structures. SELF-DISCOVER substantially improves GPT-4 and PaLM 2's performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks. We show that the self-discovered reasoning structures are universally applicable across model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T01:13:53Z)

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.