The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CMATH: Can Your Language Model Pass Chinese Elementary School Math Test?
Abstract
We present the Chinese Elementary School Math Word Problems (CMATH) dataset, comprising 1.7k elementary school-level math word problems with detailed annotations, source from actual Chinese workbooks and exams. This dataset aims to provide a benchmark tool for assessing the following question: to what grade level of elementary school math do the abilities of popular large language models (LLMs) correspond? We evaluate a variety of popular LLMs, including both commercial and open-source options, and discover that only GPT-4 achieves success (accuracy $\geq$ 60\%) across all six elementary school grades, while other models falter at different grade levels. Furthermore, we assess the robustness of several top-performing LLMs by augmenting the original problems in the CMATH dataset with distracting information. Our findings reveal that GPT-4 is able to maintains robustness, while other model fail. We anticipate that our study will expose limitations in LLMs' arithmetic and reasoning capabilities, and promote their ongoing development and advancement.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
ChatGPT and GPT-4 significantly outperform other models in solving mathematical tasks.
“In terms of performance, ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform other models significantly, showcasing their superiority in solving mathematical tasks [221].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [221]
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
AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models
Zhong, W., Cui, R., Guo, Y., Liang, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Saied, A., Chen, W., & Duan, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06364 · Cited by 211
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Yiming Cui, Ziqing Yang, and Xin Yao. 2023. Effi- cient and effective text encoding for chinese llama and alpaca. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08177. · arXiv
- Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. GLM: general language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. pages 320-335.
- 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
- Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. 2017. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 845-854, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, et al. 2022. GLM-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02414. · arXiv
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 4,254
Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
Song, P., Han, P., & Goodman, N. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06176 · Cited by 3
MergeMix: Optimizing Mid-Training Data Mixtures via Learnable Model Merging
Wang, J., Tian, C., Chen, K., Liu, Z., Mao, J., Zhao, W. X., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17858
“Tasks are grouped into several categories, including: (a) general knowledge/reasoning (ARC (Bhak-thavatsalam et al., 2021), AGIEval (Zhong et al., 2024), OpenBookQA (Mihaylov et al., 2018), BBH (Suzgun et al., 2023), WorldSense (Hong et al., 2025), PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020), hellaswag (Zellers et al., 2019) and KOR-Ben…”
InfluentialWSM: Decay-Free Learning Rate Schedule via Checkpoint Merging for LLM Pre-training
Tian, C., Wang, J., Zhao, Q., Chen, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Mao, J., Zhao, W. X., Zhang, Z., & Zhou, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17634
Metadata
- Authors
- Wei, T., Luan, J., Liu, W., Dong, S., & Wang, B.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2306.16636
- References
- 1
- 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
