REVIEW 4 cited by
Mathematical Capabilities of ChatGPT
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We investigate the mathematical capabilities of two iterations of ChatGPT (released 9-January-2023 and 30-January-2023) and of GPT-4 by testing them on publicly available datasets, as well as hand-crafted ones, using a novel methodology. In contrast to formal mathematics, where large databases of formal proofs are available (e.g., the Lean Mathematical Library), current datasets of natural-language mathematics, used to benchmark language models, either cover only elementary mathematics or are very small. We address this by publicly releasing two new datasets: GHOSTS and miniGHOSTS. These are the first natural-language datasets curated by working researchers in mathematics that (1) aim to cover graduate-level mathematics, (2) provide a holistic overview of the mathematical capabilities of language models, and (3) distinguish multiple dimensions of mathematical reasoning. These datasets also test whether ChatGPT and GPT-4 can be helpful assistants to professional mathematicians by emulating use cases that arise in the daily professional activities of mathematicians. We benchmark the models on a range of fine-grained performance metrics. For advanced mathematics, this is the most detailed evaluation effort to date. We find that ChatGPT can be used most successfully as a mathematical assistant for querying facts, acting as a mathematical search engine and knowledge base interface. GPT-4 can additionally be used for undergraduate-level mathematics but fails on graduate-level difficulty. Contrary to many positive reports in the media about GPT-4 and ChatGPT's exam-solving abilities (a potential case of selection bias), their overall mathematical performance is well below the level of a graduate student. Hence, if your goal is to use ChatGPT to pass a graduate-level math exam, you would be better off copying from your average peer!
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Causes in neuron diagrams, and testing causal reasoning in Large Language Models. A glimpse of the future of philosophy?
Neuron diagrams are used both to test causal reasoning in chatbots and to propose DEF-1, a counterfactual definition of cause claimed to cover more classic cases than previous accounts.
-
AbsenceBench: Language Models Can't Tell What's Missing
LLMs that ace Needle-in-a-Haystack struggle to identify deliberately omitted content, a new benchmark called AbsenceBench shows.
-
XToM: Exploring the Multilingual Theory of Mind for Large Language Models
XToM translates three English theory-of-mind benchmarks into Chinese, German, French, and Japanese with human quality control, and shows LLMs' belief reasoning is weaker and less consistent across languages than their...
-
Can the current trends of AI handle a full course of mathematics?
Expert reviewers preferred human-generated answers and presentations over ChatGPT-4o's for a college math course, though the AI matched or beat humans on organization and assessment clarity.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.