UGMathBench: A Diverse and Dynamic Benchmark for Undergraduate-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13766v2
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:15:43 GMT
• Title: UGMathBench: A Diverse and Dynamic Benchmark for Undergraduate-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models
• Authors: Xin Xu, Jiaxin Zhang, Tianhao Chen, Zitong Chao, Jishan Hu, Can Yang,
• Abstract summary: UGMathBench comprises 5,062 problems across 16 subjects and 111 topics, featuring 10 distinct answer types.<n>Each problem includes three randomized versions, with additional versions planned for release as leading open-source LLMs become saturated in UGMathBench.<n>Our evaluation of 23 leading LLMs reveals that the highest EAcc robustness achieved is 56.3% by OpenAI-o1-mini, with large $Delta$ values observed across different models.
• Score: 11.964085209696051
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides in mathematical reasoning, underscoring the need for a comprehensive and fair evaluation of their capabilities. However, existing benchmarks often fall short, either lacking extensive coverage of undergraduate-level mathematical problems or probably suffering from test-set contamination. To address these issues, we introduce UGMathBench, a diverse and dynamic benchmark specifically designed for evaluating undergraduate-level mathematical reasoning with LLMs. UGMathBench comprises 5,062 problems across 16 subjects and 111 topics, featuring 10 distinct answer types. Each problem includes three randomized versions, with additional versions planned for release as leading open-source LLMs become saturated in UGMathBench. Furthermore, we propose two key metrics: effective accuracy (EAcc), which measures the percentage of correctly solved problems across all three versions, and reasoning gap ($\Delta$), which assesses reasoning robustness by calculating the difference between the average accuracy across all versions and EAcc. Our extensive evaluation of 23 leading LLMs reveals that the highest EAcc achieved is 56.3\% by OpenAI-o1-mini, with large $\Delta$ values observed across different models. This highlights the need for future research aimed at developing "large reasoning models" with high EAcc and $\Delta = 0$. We anticipate that the release of UGMathBench, along with its detailed evaluation codes, will serve as a valuable resource to advance the development of LLMs in solving mathematical problems. Codes and data are available at https://github.com/YangLabHKUST/UGMathBench

Related papers

• DeepMath-103K: A Large-Scale, Challenging, Decontaminated, and Verifiable Mathematical Dataset for Advancing Reasoning [95.31714779585272]
  DeepMath-103K is a new, large-scale dataset comprising approximately 103K mathematical problems. Each problem includes a verifiable final answer, enabling rule-based RL. We demonstrate that models trained on DeepMath-103K achieve significant improvements on challenging mathematical benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T17:59:51Z)
• Challenging the Boundaries of Reasoning: An Olympiad-Level Math Benchmark for Large Language Models [86.45058529521258]
  OlymMATH is a novel Olympiad-level mathematical benchmark designed to rigorously test the complex reasoning capabilities of LLMs. OlymMATH features 200 meticulously curated problems, each manually verified and available in parallel English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T11:20:17Z)
• UTMath: Math Evaluation with Unit Test via Reasoning-to-Coding Thoughts [7.856746367263317]
  This paper introduces the UTMath Benchmark, a robust evaluation framework designed to assess Large Language Models.<n>It comprises 1,053 cutting-edge problems spanning nine mathematical domains, with an average of 68 test cases per problem.<n>The best-performing model, o1-mini, solving only 32.57% of the problems, followed by o1-preview at 27.16%, and GPT-4o at 26.93%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T18:59:02Z)
• 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.<n>Our framework auto-generates a large number of problems with solutions validated against numerical ground truths.<n>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)
• 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)
• LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs [8.89259409245068]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T18:21:26Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• MathCoder: Seamless Code Integration in LLMs for Enhanced Mathematical Reasoning [52.97768001837269]
  We present a method to fine-tune open-source language models, enabling them to use code for modeling and deriving math equations. We propose a method of generating novel and high-quality datasets with math problems and their code-based solutions. This approach yields the MathCoder models, a family of models capable of generating code-based solutions for solving challenging math problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T17:52:09Z)
• MetaMath: Bootstrap Your Own Mathematical Questions for Large Language Models [91.66694225955872]
  We propose MetaMath, a fine-tuned language model that specializes in mathematical reasoning. Specifically, we start by bootstrapping mathematical questions by rewriting the question from multiple perspectives without extra knowledge. We release all the MetaMathQA dataset, the MetaMath models with different model sizes and the training code for public use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-21T17:45:42Z)

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.