CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 386Mathematics Education and PedagogyTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models

Open access
Lewkowycz, Aitor, Andreassen, Anders, Dohan, David, Dyer, Ethan, Michalewski, Henryk, Ramasesh, Vinay, Slone, Ambrose, Anil, Cem, Schlag, Imanol, Gutman-Solo, Theo, Wu, Yuhuai, Neyshabur, Behnam, Gur-Ari, Guy, Misra, Vedant·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2206.14858arXiv 2206.14858
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Language models have achieved remarkable performance on a wide range of tasks that require natural language understanding. Nevertheless, state-of-the-art models have generally struggled with tasks that require quantitative reasoning, such as solving mathematics, science, and engineering problems at the college level. To help close this gap, we introduce Minerva, a large language model pretrained on general natural language data and further trained on technical content. The model achieves state-of-the-art performance on technical benchmarks without the use of external tools. We also evaluate our model on over two hundred undergraduate-level problems in physics, biology, chemistry, economics, and other sciences that require quantitative reasoning, and find that the model can correctly answer nearly a third of them.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2206.14858

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Alemi, A. A., Chollet, F., Een, N., Irving, G., Szegedy, C., and Urban, J. (2016). Deepmath - Deep Sequence Models for Premise Selection. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS'16, pages 2243-2251, USA. Curran Associates Inc.
  2. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877-1901.
  3. Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. d. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., Ray, A., Puri, R., Krueger, G., Petrov, M., Khlaaf, H., Sastry, G., Mishkin, P., Chan, B., Gray, S., Ryder, N., Pavlov, M., Power, A., Kaiser, L., Bavarian, M., Winter, C., Tillet, P., Such, F. P., Cummings, D., Plappert, M., Chantzis, F., Barnes, E., Herbert-Voss, A., Guss, W. H., Nichol, A., Paino, A., Tezak, N., Tang, J., Babuschkin, I., Balaji, S., Jain, S., Saunders, W., Hesse, C., Carr, A. N., Leike, J., Achiam, J., Misra, V., Morikawa, E., Radford, A., Knight, M., Brundage, M., Murati, M., Mayer, K., Welinder, P., McGrew, B., Amodei, D., McCandlish, S., Sutskever, I., and Zaremba, W. (2021). Evaluating large language models trained on code.
  4. Grabowski, A., Kornilowicz, A., and Naumowicz, A. (2010). Mizar in a nutshell. J. Formalized Reasoning , 3(2):153-245.
  5. Han, J. M., Rute, J., Wu, Y., Ayers, E., and Polu, S. (2022). Proof artifact co-training for theorem proving with language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations .
  6. Kaliszyk, C., Urban, J., Michalewski, H., and Olšák, M. (2018). Reinforcement learning of theorem proving. In Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Grauman, K., Cesa-Bianchi, N., and Garnett, R., editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc.
  7. Li, W., Yu, L., Wu, Y., and Paulson, L. C. (2021). Isarstep: a benchmark for high-level mathematical reasoning. In ICLR .
  8. Megill, N. D. and Wheeler, D. A. (2019). Metamath: A Computer Language for Pure Mathematics . Lulu Press, Morrisville, North Carolina. http://us.metamath.org/downloads/metamath.pdf .
  9. Radford, A., Wu, J., Child, R., Luan, D., Amodei, D., Sutskever, I., et al. (2019). Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog , 1(8):9.
  10. Wu, Y., Rabe, M. N., Li, W., Ba, J., Grosse, R. B., and Szegedy, C. (2021). LIME: learning inductive bias for primitives of mathematical reasoning. In Meila, M. and Zhang, T., editors, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event , volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 11251-11262. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–386 of 386

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lewkowycz, A., Andreassen, A., Dohan, D., Dyer, E., Michalewski, H., Ramasesh, V., Slone, A., Anil, C., Schlag, I., Gutman-Solo, T., Wu, Y., Neyshabur, B., Gur-Ari, G., & Misra, V.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
3843-3857
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2206.14858
arXiv
2206.14858
OpenAlex
W7133211296
Cited by
358
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 173 · 2022: 10
FWCI
287.45
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
quantitative reasoning, language models, mathematical problem solving, large language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review