Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2406.05194 (cs)
[Submitted on 7 Jun 2024 (v1), last revised 29 Mar 2025 (this version, v2)]
Title:LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs
View a PDF of the paper titled LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs, by Arash Gholami Davoodi and 2 other authors
View PDFHTML (experimental)Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning. However, despite these achievements, current evaluations are mostly limited to specific mathematical topics, and it remains unclear whether LLMs are genuinely engaging in reasoning. To address these gaps, we present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that offers 1,958 questions across a wide array of mathematical subjects, each paired with a detailed hierarchical chain of topics. Upon assessing different LLMs using the MaTT benchmark, we find that the most advanced model, GPT-4, achieved a mere 54\% accuracy in a multiple-choice scenario. Interestingly, even when employing Chain-of-Thought prompting, we observe mostly no notable improvement. Moreover, LLMs accuracy dramatically reduced by up to 24.2 percentage point when the questions were presented without providing choices. Further detailed analysis of the LLMs' performance across a range of topics showed significant discrepancy even for closely related subtopics within the same general mathematical area. In an effort to pinpoint the reasons behind LLMs performances, we conducted a manual evaluation of the completeness and correctness of the explanations generated by GPT-4 when choices were available. Surprisingly, we find that in only 53.3\% of the instances where the model provided a correct answer, the accompanying explanations were deemed complete and accurate, i.e., the model engaged in genuine reasoning.
Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
Cite as: | arXiv:2406.05194 [cs.CL] |
(orarXiv:2406.05194v2 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.05194 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Submission history
From: Pouya Pezeshkpour [view email][v1] Fri, 7 Jun 2024 18:21:26 UTC (426 KB)
[v2] Sat, 29 Mar 2025 17:29:24 UTC (445 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
- Other Formats
View a PDF of the paper titled LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs, by Arash Gholami Davoodi and 2 other authors
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer(What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers(What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps(What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations(What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv(What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers(What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub(What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub(What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face(What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code(What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast(What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
Influence Flower(What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender(What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?Learn more about arXivLabs.