Error Classification of Large Language Models on Math Word Problems: A Dynamically Adaptive Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15581v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 16:17:57 GMT
• Title: Error Classification of Large Language Models on Math Word Problems: A Dynamically Adaptive Framework
• Authors: Yuhong Sun, Zhangyue Yin, Xuanjing Huang, Xipeng Qiu, Hui Zhao,
• Abstract summary: Math Word Problems serve as a crucial benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models' reasoning abilities. Current error classification methods rely on static and predefined categories. We introduce MWPES-300K, a comprehensive dataset containing 304,865 error samples.
• Score: 64.83955753606443
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various domains. Math Word Problems (MWPs) serve as a crucial benchmark for evaluating LLMs' reasoning abilities. While most research primarily focuses on improving accuracy, it often neglects understanding and addressing the underlying patterns of errors. Current error classification methods rely on static and predefined categories, which limit their ability to capture the full spectrum of error patterns in mathematical reasoning. To enable systematic error analysis, we collect error samples from 15 different LLMs of varying sizes across four distinct MWP datasets using multiple sampling strategies. Based on this extensive collection, we introduce MWPES-300K, a comprehensive dataset containing 304,865 error samples that cover diverse error patterns and reasoning paths. To reduce human bias and enable fine-grained analysis of error patterns, we propose a novel framework for automated dynamic error classification in mathematical reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that dataset characteristics significantly shape error patterns, which evolve from basic to complex manifestations as model capabilities increase. With deeper insights into error patterns, we propose error-aware prompting that incorporates common error patterns as explicit guidance, leading to significant improvements in mathematical reasoning performance.

Related papers

• The Validation Gap: A Mechanistic Analysis of How Language Models Compute Arithmetic but Fail to Validate It [23.803612556616685]
  We present a mechanistic analysis of error detection in large language models (LLMs) Through circuit analysis, we identify the computational subgraphs responsible for detecting arithmetic errors across four smaller-sized LLMs. Our findings reveal that all models heavily rely on $textitconsistency heads$--attention heads that assess surface-level alignment of numerical values in arithmetic solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T13:00:44Z)
• Visual Error Patterns in Multi-Modal AI: A Statistical Approach [0.0]
  Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) excel at integrating text and visual data but face systematic challenges when interpreting ambiguous or incomplete visual stimuli. This study leverages statistical modeling to analyze the factors driving these errors, using a dataset of geometric stimuli characterized by features like 3D, rotation, and missing face/side.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T01:20:08Z)
• Subtle Errors Matter: Preference Learning via Error-injected Self-editing [59.405145971637204]
  We propose a novel preference learning framework called eRror-Injected Self-Editing (RISE) RISE injects predefined subtle errors into partial tokens of correct solutions to construct hard pairs for error mitigation. Experiments validate the effectiveness of RISE, with preference learning on Qwen2-7B-Instruct yielding notable improvements of 3.0% on GSM8K and 7.9% on MATH.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T07:43:38Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Understanding and Mitigating Classification Errors Through Interpretable Token Patterns [58.91023283103762]
  Characterizing errors in easily interpretable terms gives insight into whether a classifier is prone to making systematic errors. We propose to discover those patterns of tokens that distinguish correct and erroneous predictions. We show that our method, Premise, performs well in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T00:24:26Z)
• Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors, Summarizers, Datasets, Error Detectors [105.12462629663757]
  In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T15:26:48Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)

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.