SciBench: Evaluating College-Level Scientific Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models
2307.10635
2
0
š¬
Abstract
Most of the existing Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarks on scientific problem reasoning focus on problems grounded in high-school subjects and are confined to elementary algebraic operations. To systematically examine the reasoning capabilities required for solving complex scientific problems, we introduce an expansive benchmark suite SciBench for LLMs. SciBench contains a carefully curated dataset featuring a range of collegiate-level scientific problems from mathematics, chemistry, and physics domains. Based on the dataset, we conduct an in-depth benchmarking study of representative open-source and proprietary LLMs with various prompting strategies. The results reveal that the current LLMs fall short of delivering satisfactory performance, with the best overall score of merely 43.22%. Furthermore, through a detailed user study, we categorize the errors made by LLMs into ten problem-solving abilities. Our analysis indicates that no single prompting strategy significantly outperforms the others and some strategies that demonstrate improvements in certain problem-solving skills could result in declines in other skills. We envision that SciBench will catalyze further developments in the reasoning abilities of LLMs, thereby ultimately contributing to scientific research and discovery.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper introduces a new benchmark suite called SciBench to assess the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on complex scientific problems.
- Existing benchmarks focus on high-school level problems, but SciBench features collegiate-level problems in mathematics, chemistry, and physics.
- The authors conduct an in-depth study of how well representative open-source and proprietary LLMs perform on SciBench, using various prompting strategies.
- The results show that current LLMs struggle to deliver satisfactory performance, with the best overall score being just 43.22%.
- The authors also identify 10 problem-solving abilities where LLMs exhibit weaknesses, and find that no single prompting strategy significantly outperforms the others.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the ability of Large Language Models to solve complex scientific problems, which is an important capability for these models to have. Most existing benchmarks for testing LLM reasoning focus on relatively simple, high-school level problems, but the authors argue that this doesn't tell the full story.
To get a more comprehensive understanding of LLM reasoning abilities, the researchers created a new benchmark called SciBench, which contains a diverse set of collegiate-level math, chemistry, and physics problems. They then tested several popular LLMs, both open-source and proprietary, on this new benchmark using various prompting strategies.
The results were sobering - the best-performing LLM only managed to get 43.22% of the problems correct. The authors also identified 10 specific problem-solving skills where the LLMs struggled, such as applying multi-step reasoning or handling complex equations. Interestingly, they found that no single prompting strategy was consistently better than the others - some helped with certain skills but hurt others.
Overall, this research highlights that current LLMs are still far from being able to reliably solve advanced scientific problems, despite their impressive language understanding capabilities. The SciBench benchmark provides a valuable tool to drive further progress in this direction, which could have important implications for fields like scientific research and discovery.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new benchmark suite called SciBench to systematically evaluate the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on complex scientific problems. Existing benchmarks for testing LLM problem-solving skills have primarily focused on high-school level subjects and elementary algebraic operations. However, the authors argue that assessing LLM performance on more advanced, collegiate-level scientific problems is essential for understanding their true reasoning abilities.
To address this gap, the researchers curated a dataset of math, chemistry, and physics problems from collegiate-level textbooks and exams. This dataset, which forms the SciBench benchmark, covers a diverse range of scientific concepts and problem-solving skills. The authors then conducted an in-depth study evaluating the performance of several representative open-source and proprietary LLMs on this benchmark, using various prompting strategies.
The results reveal that current LLMs fall short of delivering satisfactory performance on the SciBench problems, with the best-performing model achieving an overall score of only 43.22%. Further analysis categorized the types of errors made by the LLMs into 10 distinct problem-solving abilities, such as multi-step reasoning, handling complex equations, and logical inference.
Interestingly, the researchers found that no single prompting strategy significantly outperformed the others. Some strategies showed improvements in certain problem-solving skills but resulted in declines in other areas, suggesting that a more nuanced approach may be needed to fully harness the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
Critical Analysis
The SciBench benchmark introduced in this paper represents an important step forward in assessing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models. By focusing on more advanced, collegiate-level scientific problems, the authors have pushed beyond the relatively simple tasks covered by existing benchmarks. This is a valuable contribution, as it allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of LLM performance and identifies specific areas where these models struggle.
However, one potential limitation of the SciBench benchmark is the relatively small size of the dataset, which may not capture the full breadth of scientific problem-solving abilities required in real-world scenarios. Additionally, the authors acknowledge that their study only examined a limited set of LLM architectures and prompting strategies, and there may be other approaches that could yield better results.
It is also worth noting that the performance scores reported in the paper, while informative, do not necessarily translate directly to the real-world capabilities of these models. LLMs are constantly evolving, and their performance on benchmarks may not fully reflect their ability to assist in actual scientific research and discovery. Further research is needed to understand how these models can be effectively deployed and integrated into scientific workflows.
Conclusion
The SciBench benchmark introduced in this paper represents a significant advancement in the evaluation of Large Language Model reasoning capabilities. By focusing on complex, collegiate-level scientific problems, the authors have revealed that current LLMs still struggle to deliver satisfactory performance, with the best model achieving just a 43.22% overall score.
The detailed analysis of the LLMs' problem-solving weaknesses provides valuable insights that can guide future research and development efforts. As the authors note, the SciBench benchmark has the potential to catalyze further advancements in LLM reasoning abilities, ultimately contributing to scientific research and discovery.
While the current limitations of these models are apparent, the continued progress in language understanding and generation suggests that LLMs could one day play a transformative role in augmenting and empowering scientific exploration. The SciBench benchmark will be an essential tool in tracking and driving this progress.
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
SciEx: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Scientific Exams with Human Expert Grading and Automatic Grading
Tu Anh Dinh, Carlos Mullov, Leonard Barmann, Zhaolin Li, Danni Liu, Simon Rei{ss}, Jueun Lee, Nathan Lerzer, Fabian Ternava, Jianfeng Gao, Alexander Waibel, Tamim Asfour, Michael Beigl, Rainer Stiefelhagen, Carsten Dachsbacher, Klemens Bohm, Jan Niehues
0
0
With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), it is crucial to have benchmarks which can evaluate the ability of LLMs on different domains. One common use of LLMs is performing tasks on scientific topics, such as writing algorithms, querying databases or giving mathematical proofs. Inspired by the way university students are evaluated on such tasks, in this paper, we propose SciEx - a benchmark consisting of university computer science exam questions, to evaluate LLMs ability on solving scientific tasks. SciEx is (1) multilingual, containing both English and German exams, and (2) multi-modal, containing questions that involve images, and (3) contains various types of freeform questions with different difficulty levels, due to the nature of university exams. We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs on our new benchmark. Since SciEx questions are freeform, it is not straightforward to evaluate LLM performance. Therefore, we provide human expert grading of the LLM outputs on SciEx. We show that the free-form exams in SciEx remain challenging for the current LLMs, where the best LLM only achieves 59.4% exam grade on average. We also provide detailed comparisons between LLM performance and student performance on SciEx. To enable future evaluation of new LLMs, we propose using LLM-as-a-judge to grade the LLM answers on SciEx. Our experiments show that, although they do not perform perfectly on solving the exams, LLMs are decent as graders, achieving 0.948 Pearson correlation with expert grading.
6/18/2024
SciAssess: Benchmarking LLM Proficiency in Scientific Literature Analysis
Hengxing Cai, Xiaochen Cai, Junhan Chang, Sihang Li, Lin Yao, Changxin Wang, Zhifeng Gao, Hongshuai Wang, Yongge Li, Mujie Lin, Shuwen Yang, Jiankun Wang, Mingjun Xu, Jin Huang, Fang Xi, Jiaxi Zhuang, Yuqi Yin, Yaqi Li, Changhong Chen, Zheng Cheng, Zifeng Zhao, Linfeng Zhang, Guolin Ke
0
0
Recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language understanding and generation, sparking significant interest in applying them to scientific literature analysis. However, existing benchmarks fail to adequately evaluate the proficiency of LLMs in this domain, particularly in scenarios requiring higher-level abilities beyond mere memorization and the handling of multimodal data. In response to this gap, we introduce SciAssess, a benchmark specifically designed for the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs in scientific literature analysis. SciAssess aims to thoroughly assess the efficacy of LLMs by focusing on their capabilities in Memorization (L1), Comprehension (L2), and Analysis & Reasoning (L3). It encompasses a variety of tasks drawn from diverse scientific fields, including fundamental science, alloy materials, biomedicine, drug discovery, and organic materials. To ensure the reliability of SciAssess, rigorous quality control measures have been implemented, ensuring accuracy, anonymization, and compliance with copyright standards. SciAssess evaluates 11 LLMs, including GPT, Claude, and Gemini, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. This evaluation supports the ongoing development of LLM applications in the analysis of scientific literature. SciAssess and its resources are available at url{https://sci-assess.github.io/}.
6/19/2024
SciKnowEval: Evaluating Multi-level Scientific Knowledge of Large Language Models
Kehua Feng, Keyan Ding, Weijie Wang, Xiang Zhuang, Zeyuan Wang, Ming Qin, Yu Zhao, Jianhua Yao, Qiang Zhang, Huajun Chen
0
0
The burgeoning utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific research necessitates advanced benchmarks capable of evaluating their understanding and application of scientific knowledge comprehensively. To address this need, we introduce the SciKnowEval benchmark, a novel framework that systematically evaluates LLMs across five progressive levels of scientific knowledge: studying extensively, inquiring earnestly, thinking profoundly, discerning clearly, and practicing assiduously. These levels aim to assess the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge in LLMs, including knowledge coverage, inquiry and exploration capabilities, reflection and reasoning abilities, ethic and safety considerations, as well as practice proficiency. Specifically, we take biology and chemistry as the two instances of SciKnowEval and construct a dataset encompassing 50K multi-level scientific problems and solutions. By leveraging this dataset, we benchmark 20 leading open-source and proprietary LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. The results reveal that despite achieving state-of-the-art performance, the proprietary LLMs still have considerable room for improvement, particularly in addressing scientific computations and applications. We anticipate that SciKnowEval will establish a comprehensive standard for benchmarking LLMs in science research and discovery, and promote the development of LLMs that integrate scientific knowledge with strong safety awareness. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/hicai-zju/sciknoweval .
6/14/2024
Easy Problems That LLMs Get Wrong
Sean Williams, James Huckle
0
0
We introduce a comprehensive Linguistic Benchmark designed to evaluate the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) in domains such as logical reasoning, spatial intelligence, and linguistic understanding, among others. Through a series of straightforward questions, it uncovers the significant limitations of well-regarded models to perform tasks that humans manage with ease. It also highlights the potential of prompt engineering to mitigate some errors and underscores the necessity for better training methodologies. Our findings stress the importance of grounding LLMs with human reasoning and common sense, emphasising the need for human-in-the-loop for enterprise applications. We hope this work paves the way for future research to enhance the usefulness and reliability of new models.
6/4/2024