File size: 2,526 Bytes
75f51f1 1cabc3e d070d11 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 |
---
license: mit
task_categories:
- question-answering
language:
- en
tags:
- chemistry
- physics
- mathematics
pretty_name: jeebench
size_categories:
- n<1K
---
# JEEBench(EMNLP 2023)
Repository for the code and dataset for the paper: "Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Harder Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models" accepted in EMNLP 2023 as a Main conference paper.
https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.468/
## Citation
If you use our dataset in your research, please cite it using the following
```latex
@inproceedings{arora-etal-2023-llms,
title = "Have {LLM}s Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models",
author = "Arora, Daman and
Singh, Himanshu and
{Mausam}",
editor = "Bouamor, Houda and
Pino, Juan and
Bali, Kalika",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
month = dec,
year = "2023",
address = "Singapore",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.468",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.468",
pages = "7527--7543",
abstract = "The performance of large language models (LLMs) on existing reasoning benchmarks has significantly improved over the past years. In response, we present JEEBench, a considerably more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of LLMs. We curate 515 challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the highly competitive IIT JEE-Advanced exam. Long-horizon reasoning on top of deep in-domain knowledge is essential for solving problems in this benchmark. Our evaluation on various open-source and proprietary models reveals that the highest performance, even after using techniques like self-consistency, self-refinement and chain-of-thought prompting, is less than 40{\%}. The typical failure modes of GPT-4, the best model, are errors in algebraic manipulation, difficulty in grounding abstract concepts into mathematical equations accurately and failure in retrieving relevant domain-specific concepts. We also observe that by mere prompting, GPT-4 is unable to assess risk introduced by negative marking for incorrect answers. For this, we develop a post-hoc confidence-thresholding method over self-consistency, which enables effective response selection. We hope that our challenging benchmark will guide future re-search in problem-solving using LLMs.",
}
``` |