Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
On complex and challenging mathematical problems, GPT-3 demonstrates nearly random performance, GPT-3.5 shows improvement, and GPT-4 performs best.
“Specifically, GPT-3 demonstrates nearly random performance, while GPT-3.5 shows improvement, and GPT-4 performs the best [3].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
Chemistry problems have lower inference complexity than physics problems in this setting.
“[3] showed that LLMs perform worse on physics problems than chemistry problems, probably because chemistry problems have lower inference complexity than physics problems in this setting.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [3]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Pranjal Aggarwal, Aman Madaan, Yiming Yang, and Mausam. 2023. Let's sample step by step: Adaptive- consistency for efficient reasoning and coding with llms. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing.
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word prob- lems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021a. Measuring massive multitask language under- standing. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021b. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS.
- Danqing Huang, Shuming Shi, Chin-Yew Lin, Jian Yin, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2016. How well do computers solve math word problems? large-scale dataset con- struction and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 887-896, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Yuzhen Huang, Yuzhuo Bai, Zhihao Zhu, Junlei Zhang, Jinghan Zhang, Tangjun Su, Junteng Liu, Chuancheng Lv, Yikai Zhang, Jiayi Lei, Yao Fu, Maosong Sun, and Junxian He. 2023. C- eval: A multi-level multi-discipline chinese evalu- ation suite for foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08322. · arXiv
- Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang (Shane) Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 22199-22213.
- Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blun- som. 2017. Program induction by rationale genera- tion: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 158-167, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Pan Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Tony Xia, Liang Qiu, Kai- Wei Chang, Song-Chun Zhu, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Ashwin Kalyan. 2022. Learn to explain: Multimodal reasoning via thought chains for science question answering. In The 36th Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).
- Karthik Valmeekam, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2022. Large language models still can't plan (a benchmark for LLMs on planning and reasoning about change). In NeurIPS 2022 Foundation Models for Decision Making Work- shop.
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023b. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Johannes Welbl, Nelson F. Liu, and Matt Gardner. 2017. Crowdsourcing multiple choice science questions. ArXiv, abs/1707.06209. · arXiv
- Kunhao Zheng, Jesse Michael Han, and Stanislas Polu. 2022. minif2f: a cross-system benchmark for for- mal olympiad-level mathematics. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
“(Arora et al., 2023) showed that LLMs perform worse on physics problems than chemistry problems, probably because chemistry problems have lower inference complexity than physics problems in this setting.”
BackgroundInfluentialMuennighoff, N., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Li, X. L., Fei-Fei, L., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Liang, P., Candes, E., & Hashimoto, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1025 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Muennighoff, N., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Li, X. L., Fei-Fei, L., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Liang, P., Candès, E., & Hashimoto, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.19393 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
How to Steal Reasoning Without Reasoning Traces
Zhang, T., Morris, J. X., & Shmatikov, V. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.07267
“Performance continues to improve up to 15k queries, reaching 80.8% on MATH500 and 47.3% on JEEBench.”
Influential
- Authors
- Arora, D., Singh, H. G., & Mausam
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2305.15074
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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
