Exposing the Achilles' Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10834v1
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 08:06:05 GMT
- Title: Exposing the Achilles' Heel: Evaluating LLMs Ability to Handle Mistakes in Mathematical Reasoning
- Authors: Joykirat Singh, Akshay Nambi, Vibhav Vineet,
- Abstract summary: 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-$o's superior performance in mistake detection and rectification and the persistent challenges faced by smaller models.
- Score: 11.63133816413199
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to Math Word Problems (MWPs) with transformative impacts, revolutionizing how these complex problems are approached and solved in various domains including educational settings. However, the evaluation of these models often prioritizes final accuracy, overlooking the crucial aspect of reasoning capabilities. This work addresses this gap by focusing on the ability of LLMs to detect and correct reasoning mistakes. We introduce a novel dataset MWP-MISTAKE, incorporating MWPs with both correct and incorrect reasoning steps generated through rule-based methods and smaller language models. Our comprehensive benchmarking reveals significant insights into the strengths and weaknesses of state-of-the-art models, such as GPT-4o, GPT-4, GPT-3.5Turbo, and others. We highlight GPT-$o's superior performance in mistake detection and rectification and the persistent challenges faced by smaller models. Additionally, we identify issues related to data contamination and memorization, impacting the reliability of LLMs in real-world applications. Our findings emphasize the importance of rigorous evaluation of reasoning processes and propose future directions to enhance the generalization and robustness of LLMs in mathematical problem-solving.
Related papers
- 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) - Deconfounded Causality-aware Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Problem-Solving Improvement of LLMs [12.48241058167222]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in tackling various tasks based on human instructions.
But studies reveal that they often struggle with tasks requiring reasoning, such as math or physics limitation.
This raises questions about whether LLMs truly comprehend embedded knowledge or merely learn to replicate the token distribution without a true understanding of the content.
We propose Decon Causal Adaptation (DCA), a novel parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) method to enhance the model's reasoning capabilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-04T13:17:09Z) - MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.
We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.
Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z) - RUPBench: Benchmarking Reasoning Under Perturbations for Robustness Evaluation in Large Language Models [12.112914393948415]
We present RUPBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) across diverse reasoning tasks.
Our benchmark incorporates 15 reasoning datasets, categorized into commonsense, arithmetic, logical, and knowledge-intensive reasoning.
By examining the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs such as GPT-4o, Llama3, Phi-3, and Gemma on both original and perturbed datasets, we provide a detailed analysis of their robustness and error patterns.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-16T17:26:44Z) - Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction [35.01097297297534]
Existing evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) focus on problem-solving from the examinee perspective.
We define four evaluation tasks for error identification and correction along with a new dataset with annotated error types and steps.
Our principal findings indicate that GPT-4 outperforms all models, while open-source model LLaMA-2-7B demonstrates comparable abilities to closed-source models GPT-3.5 and Gemini Pro.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-02T14:16:24Z) - Cutting Through the Noise: Boosting LLM Performance on Math Word Problems [52.99006895757801]
Large Language Models excel at solving math word problems, but struggle with real-world problems containing irrelevant information.
We propose a prompting framework that generates adversarial variants of MWPs by adding irrelevant variables.
Fine-tuning on adversarial training instances improves performance on adversarial MWPs by 8%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-30T18:07:13Z) - 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) - Context Matters: Data-Efficient Augmentation of Large Language Models
for Scientific Applications [15.893290942177112]
We explore the challenges inherent to Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4.
The capacity of LLMs to present erroneous answers in a coherent and semantically rigorous manner complicates the detection of factual inaccuracies.
Our work aims to enhance the understanding and mitigation of such errors, thereby contributing to the improvement of LLM accuracy and reliability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-12T08:43:20Z) - Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators [121.15880285283116]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-04T18:58:57Z) - 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)
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.