Evaluating Language Model Math Reasoning via Grounding in Educational Curricula
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Evaluates the mathematical reasoning abilities of large language models by grounding them in educational curricula
- Focuses on assessing models' understanding of mathematical concepts and problem-solving skills
- Proposes a benchmark that covers a diverse range of math topics and skills at different grade levels
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores how well large language models, such as GPT-3, can reason about and solve mathematical problems. Instead of just testing the models' ability to pattern-match and regurgitate information, the researchers wanted to assess the models' deeper understanding of mathematical concepts and their ability to apply that understanding to solve problems.
To do this, the researchers developed a benchmark that covers a wide range of math topics and skills across different grade levels, from elementary school to high school. The benchmark includes questions and problems that require the models to demonstrate their grasp of mathematical principles, their problem-solving strategies, and their ability to communicate their reasoning in natural language.
By grounding the evaluation in educational curricula, the researchers aimed to gain insights into how these language models might perform in real-world settings, such as tutoring or assisting students with their math homework. The results could help identify the strengths and weaknesses of these models and guide further development to make them more effective at supporting human learning and problem-solving in mathematics.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a benchmark for evaluating the mathematical reasoning abilities of large language models. This benchmark, called MathIfy, covers a diverse range of math topics and skills across different grade levels, from elementary school to high school.
The benchmark includes questions and problems that require the models to demonstrate their understanding of mathematical concepts, their problem-solving strategies, and their ability to communicate their reasoning in natural language. The researchers curated the benchmark content by drawing from educational resources, such as textbooks and standardized test questions, to ensure the relevance and difficulty levels align with the expectations for students at each grade level.
To evaluate the models, the researchers assessed their performance on the MathIfy benchmark and analyzed the models' responses to gain insights into their mathematical reasoning capabilities. They compared the models' performance across different grade levels and math topics, as well as their ability to provide step-by-step explanations of their problem-solving approaches.
The findings from this research can inform the development of more effective language models for supporting human learning and problem-solving in mathematics. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these models, researchers and developers can work to improve their mathematical reasoning abilities and make them more useful tools for educational and other real-world applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-designed benchmark for evaluating language models' mathematical reasoning abilities, but it also acknowledges some limitations and areas for further research.
One potential concern is the reliance on educational resources, which may not fully capture the nuances and complexities of real-world mathematical problem-solving. The researchers note that the benchmark focuses on traditional academic math skills and may not adequately assess more open-ended, creative problem-solving approaches that could be valuable in certain contexts.
Additionally, the paper does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the models' performance on the benchmark, nor does it explore the underlying factors that contribute to their successes and failures. Further research could delve deeper into the models' reasoning processes, the types of errors they make, and the specific mathematical concepts or skills they struggle with.
Another area for exploration is the potential impact of the models' language understanding and generation capabilities on their mathematical reasoning. The paper suggests that the models' ability to communicate their problem-solving steps in natural language is an important aspect of their performance, but more research is needed to understand how this interacts with their mathematical knowledge and problem-solving strategies.
Despite these limitations, the paper makes a valuable contribution by proposing a rigorous and relevant benchmark for evaluating language models' mathematical reasoning. This work lays the groundwork for future research and development efforts aimed at creating more effective AI-based tools for supporting human learning and problem-solving in mathematics.
Conclusion
The paper presents a novel approach to evaluating the mathematical reasoning abilities of large language models by grounding the assessment in educational curricula. The proposed MathIfy benchmark covers a diverse range of math topics and skills, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of the models' understanding and problem-solving capabilities.
By aligning the benchmark with educational expectations, the researchers aim to gain insights into how these language models might perform in real-world settings, such as assisting students with their math homework or serving as tutors. The findings from this research can inform the development of more effective AI-based tools for supporting human learning and problem-solving in mathematics, a critical area for both educational and practical applications.
While the paper acknowledges some limitations and areas for further research, it represents an important step forward in the ongoing efforts to advance the mathematical reasoning abilities of large language models and make them more useful and relevant in educational and other real-world contexts.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Evaluating Language Model Math Reasoning via Grounding in Educational Curricula
Li Lucy, Tal August, Rose E. Wang, Luca Soldaini, Courtney Allison, Kyle Lo
Our work presents a novel angle for evaluating language models' (LMs) mathematical abilities, by investigating whether they can discern skills and concepts enabled by math content. We contribute two datasets: one consisting of 385 fine-grained descriptions of K-12 math skills and concepts, or standards, from Achieve the Core (ATC), and another of 9.9K problems labeled with these standards (MathFish). Working with experienced teachers, we find that LMs struggle to tag and verify standards linked to problems, and instead predict labels that are close to ground truth, but differ in subtle ways. We also show that LMs often generate problems that do not fully align with standards described in prompts. Finally, we categorize problems in GSM8k using math standards, allowing us to better understand why some problems are more difficult to solve for models than others.
Read more8/13/2024
💬
0
Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process
Tian Ye, Zicheng Xu, Yuanzhi Li, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu
Recent advances in language models have demonstrated their capability to solve mathematical reasoning problems, achieving near-perfect accuracy on grade-school level math benchmarks like GSM8K. In this paper, we formally study how language models solve these problems. We design a series of controlled experiments to address several fundamental questions: (1) Can language models truly develop reasoning skills, or do they simply memorize templates? (2) What is the model's hidden (mental) reasoning process? (3) Do models solve math questions using skills similar to or different from humans? (4) Do models trained on GSM8K-like datasets develop reasoning skills beyond those necessary for solving GSM8K problems? (5) What mental process causes models to make reasoning mistakes? (6) How large or deep must a model be to effectively solve GSM8K-level math questions? Our study uncovers many hidden mechanisms by which language models solve mathematical questions, providing insights that extend beyond current understandings of LLMs.
Read more7/31/2024
0
Caught in the Quicksand of Reasoning, Far from AGI Summit: Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions
Pengfei Hong, Navonil Majumder, Deepanway Ghosal, Somak Aditya, Rada Mihalcea, Soujanya Poria
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased striking results on existing logical reasoning benchmarks, with some models even surpassing human performance. However, the true depth of their competencies and robustness in reasoning tasks remains an open question. To this end, in this paper, we focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. Particularly, we introduce: (i) a general ontology of perturbations for maths and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets, MORE and CORE, respectively, of perturbed maths and coding problems to probe the limits of LLM capabilities in numeric reasoning and coding tasks. Through comprehensive evaluations of both closed-source and open-source LLMs, we show a significant performance drop across all the models against the perturbed questions, suggesting that the current LLMs lack robust problem solving skills and structured reasoning abilities in many areas, as defined by our ontology. We open source the datasets and source codes at: https://github.com/declare-lab/llm_robustness.
Read more6/28/2024
💬
0
Logic Contrastive Reasoning with Lightweight Large Language Model for Math Word Problems
Ding Kai, Ma Zhenguo, Yan Xiaoran
This study focuses on improving the performance of lightweight Large Language Models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning tasks. We introduce a novel method for measuring mathematical logic similarity and design an automatic screening mechanism to construct a set of reference problems that integrate both semantic and logical similarity. By employing carefully crafted positive and negative example prompts, we guide the model towards adopting sound reasoning logic. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to utilize retrieval-enhanced generation for mathematical problem-solving. Experimental results demonstrate that our method achieves a 15.8% improvement over the Chain of Thought approach on the SVAMP dataset and a 21.5 % improvement on the GSM8K dataset. Further application of this method to a large-scale model with 175 billion parameters yields performance comparable to the best results on both aforementioned datasets. Finally, we conduct an analysis of errors during the reasoning process, providing valuable insights and directions for future research on reasoning tasks using large language models.
Read more9/4/2024