arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2410.04698cs.CL
收藏

MathHay:面向大语言模型长上下文数学推理的自动化基准

MathHay: An Automated Benchmark for Long-Context Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs

Salesforce AI Research(Salesforce AI研究院);Singapore Management University(新加坡管理大学)

Lei Wang, Shan Dong, Yuhui Xu, Hanze Dong, Yalu Wang, Amrita Saha, Ee-Peng Lim, Caiming Xiong, Doyen Sahoo

AI总结:

针对现有长上下文基准缺乏数学推理能力评估的问题,本文提出自动化基准MathHay,要求模型兼具长文本信息检索与复杂数学推理能力,实验显示8款顶尖LLMs在该基准上表现不佳,最优模型128K tokens下准确率仅51.26%。

摘要:

近期的大语言模型(LLMs)已在长上下文场景中展现出多方面能力。尽管已有部分近期基准被开发用于评估LLMs的长上下文能力,但目前仍缺乏评估LLMs在长上下文下数学推理能力的基准,而这一能力对LLMs在真实场景中的应用至关重要。本文提出了MathHay,这是一款专为评估LLMs长上下文数学推理能力设计的自动化基准。与此前主要聚焦长文本内信息检索的Needle in a Haystack(大海捞针)等基准不同,MathHay要求模型同时具备信息检索能力与复杂数学推理能力。我们在MathHay上开展了大量实验,对8款性能顶尖的LLMs的长上下文数学推理能力进行评估。即便是表现最优的模型Gemini-1.5-Pro-002,在长上下文数学推理任务上仍存在困难,在128K tokens的设置下仅达到51.26%的准确率。这一结果凸显出模型在MathHay基准上仍有很大提升空间。

英文摘要:

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated versatile capabilities in long-context scenarios. Although some recent benchmarks have been developed to evaluate the long-context capabilities of LLMs, there is a lack of benchmarks evaluating the mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs over long contexts, which is crucial for LLMs' application in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we introduce MathHay, an automated benchmark designed to assess the long-context mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs. Unlike previous benchmarks like Needle in a Haystack, which focus primarily on information retrieval within long texts, MathHay demands models with both information-seeking and complex mathematical reasoning abilities. We conduct extensive experiments on MathHay to assess the long-context mathematical reasoning abilities of eight top-performing LLMs. Even the best-performing model, Gemini-1.5-Pro-002, still struggles with mathematical reasoning over long contexts, achieving only 51.26% accuracy at 128K tokens. This highlights the significant room for improvement on the MathHay benchmark.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑