Commit ·
05b4fc0
1
Parent(s): 1150a65
Update README.md
Browse files- .gitignore +3 -0
- AxiomicBanner.png +3 -0
- README.md +116 -3
- mathmark.jsonl +0 -0
.gitignore
ADDED
|
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
+
*.py
|
| 2 |
+
*.txt
|
| 3 |
+
*.json
|
AxiomicBanner.png
ADDED
|
Git LFS Details
|
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,3 +1,116 @@
|
|
| 1 |
-
---
|
| 2 |
-
license: apache-2.0
|
| 3 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
+
---
|
| 2 |
+
license: apache-2.0
|
| 3 |
+
language:
|
| 4 |
+
- en
|
| 5 |
+
size_categories:
|
| 6 |
+
- 1K<n<10K
|
| 7 |
+
pretty_name: ArithMark
|
| 8 |
+
---
|
| 9 |
+
|
| 10 |
+

|
| 11 |
+
|
| 12 |
+
# ArithMark
|
| 13 |
+
|
| 14 |
+
A procedurally generated benchmark for evaluating arithmetic reasoning in language models. Each problem presents a numeric expression and asks the model to identify the correct result.
|
| 15 |
+
|
| 16 |
+
Unlike knowledge-based benchmarks, ArithMark contains no facts a model could have memorised from pretraining. Every problem is generated fresh from random integers and operator sequences, so a model cannot pattern-match to training data — it must actually compute. This makes ArithMark a direct probe of **numerical reasoning capability**: the arithmetic structure that has been built into the model's weights through training, independent of world knowledge or surface-level heuristics.
|
| 17 |
+
|
| 18 |
+
Evaluation is log-likelihood multiple-choice, no chain-of-thought, no prompting tricks. Models are scored purely on how well they assign probability to the correct completion.
|
| 19 |
+
|
| 20 |
+
---
|
| 21 |
+
|
| 22 |
+
## Benchmark Results
|
| 23 |
+
|
| 24 |
+
Evaluated using average log-likelihood over ending tokens, normalised by length. Random chance = 25%.
|
| 25 |
+
|
| 26 |
+
| Company | Model | Params | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 | Stage 5 | Avg |
|
| 27 |
+
| ------------------------ | ------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- |
|
| 28 |
+
| Alibaba | Qwen2.5-3B | 3.1B | 97.30% | 75.60% | **63.90%** | **55.40%** | **53.50%** | **69.14%** |
|
| 29 |
+
| Alibaba | Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B | 1.5B | **97.70%** | **77.90%** | 63.20% | 51.00% | 44.10% | 66.78% |
|
| 30 |
+
| Alibaba | Qwen2.5-1.5B | 1.5B | 94.70% | 69.10% | 58.90% | 49.90% | 46.80% | 63.88% |
|
| 31 |
+
| Alibaba | Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B | 1.5B | 93.00% | 65.20% | 57.60% | 51.30% | 49.20% | 63.26% |
|
| 32 |
+
| Alibaba | Qwen2.5-0.5B | 494M | 85.50% | 57.60% | 48.20% | 40.10% | 38.80% | 54.04% |
|
| 33 |
+
| HuggingFace | SmolLM2-1.7B | 1.7B | 82.70% | 54.50% | 44.90% | 35.20% | 33.30% | 50.12% |
|
| 34 |
+
| EleutherAI | pythia-2.8b | 2.8B | 52.40% | 42.20% | 33.30% | 28.90% | 27.20% | 36.80% |
|
| 35 |
+
| OpenAI | gpt2-xl | 1.6B | 39.90% | 38.30% | 36.10% | 32.80% | 33.50% | 36.12% |
|
| 36 |
+
| OpenAI | gpt2-medium | 345M | 37.70% | 37.20% | 33.60% | 30.90% | 32.80% | 34.44% |
|
| 37 |
+
| HuggingFace | SmolLM2-135M | 135M | 41.20% | 37.40% | 32.80% | 28.70% | 25.90% | 33.20% |
|
| 38 |
+
| Axiomic Labs | GPT-X2-125M *(unreleased)* | 125M | 40.40% | 36.60% | 33.20% | 26.00% | 29.00% | 33.04% |
|
| 39 |
+
| HuggingFace | SmolLM-135M | 135M | 42.70% | 36.50% | 32.60% | 25.30% | 23.90% | 32.20% |
|
| 40 |
+
| OpenAI | gpt2 | 124M | 35.70% | 32.80% | 31.90% | 28.00% | 29.60% | 31.60% |
|
| 41 |
+
| Meta | MobileLLM-125M | 125M | 35.90% | 35.00% | 32.90% | 27.40% | 24.60% | 31.16% |
|
| 42 |
+
| Axiomic Labs | GPT-X-125M | 125M | 38.10% | 33.20% | 29.00% | 26.90% | 25.40% | 30.52% |
|
| 43 |
+
| EleutherAI | pythia-31m | 30M | 36.40% | 31.00% | 29.30% | 27.80% | 26.60% | 30.22% |
|
| 44 |
+
| EleutherAI | pythia-160m | 162M | 35.80% | 30.30% | 28.00% | 28.20% | 27.00% | 29.86% |
|
| 45 |
+
| EleutherAI | pythia-70m | 70M | 36.30% | 30.10% | 28.50% | 27.30% | 26.90% | 29.82% |
|
| 46 |
+
| EleutherAI | pythia-14m | 14M | 34.50% | 29.00% | 26.30% | 24.40% | 24.00% | 27.64% |
|
| 47 |
+
|
| 48 |
+
---
|
| 49 |
+
|
| 50 |
+
## Task Format
|
| 51 |
+
|
| 52 |
+
Each problem is presented as a numeric expression followed by four answer choices — a mix of integers and floats so the answer type is never a giveaway:
|
| 53 |
+
|
| 54 |
+
```
|
| 55 |
+
-13 * 3 + -1 =
|
| 56 |
+
A. -40
|
| 57 |
+
B. -4.2317
|
| 58 |
+
C. 26
|
| 59 |
+
D. -33.8851
|
| 60 |
+
```
|
| 61 |
+
|
| 62 |
+
Evaluation is log-likelihood multiple-choice: the model scores each continuation and the highest wins. No generation, no chain-of-thought.
|
| 63 |
+
|
| 64 |
+
---
|
| 65 |
+
|
| 66 |
+
## Difficulty Stages
|
| 67 |
+
|
| 68 |
+
Problems are organized into 5 stages of increasing complexity by operand count. All stages draw from `{+, -, *, /}`.
|
| 69 |
+
|
| 70 |
+
| Stage | Operands | Operators | Example |
|
| 71 |
+
|-------|----------|-----------|---------|
|
| 72 |
+
| 1 | 2 | 1 | `5 * -3 =` |
|
| 73 |
+
| 2 | 3 | 2 | `7 - 2 * 4 =` |
|
| 74 |
+
| 3 | 4 | 3 | `-6 + 10 / 2 - 1 =` |
|
| 75 |
+
| 4 | 5 | 4 | `3 * -2 + 8 - 1 / 4 =` |
|
| 76 |
+
| 5 | 6 | 5 | `-4 + 2 * 7 - 3 / 1 + 6 =` |
|
| 77 |
+
|
| 78 |
+
1,000 problems per stage, 5,000 total. Division by zero is rejected and regenerated.
|
| 79 |
+
|
| 80 |
+
---
|
| 81 |
+
|
| 82 |
+
## Dataset Format
|
| 83 |
+
|
| 84 |
+
```json
|
| 85 |
+
{
|
| 86 |
+
"id": "math_s3_00000",
|
| 87 |
+
"stage": 3,
|
| 88 |
+
"n_operands": 4,
|
| 89 |
+
"expression": "-13 * 3 + -1",
|
| 90 |
+
"options": [-40, -4.2317, 26, -33.8851],
|
| 91 |
+
"answer_index": 0,
|
| 92 |
+
"answer": -40
|
| 93 |
+
}
|
| 94 |
+
```
|
| 95 |
+
|
| 96 |
+
---
|
| 97 |
+
|
| 98 |
+
## Generator
|
| 99 |
+
|
| 100 |
+
`mathmark_gen.py` — generates all 5 stages with baked-in distractors.
|
| 101 |
+
|
| 102 |
+
```
|
| 103 |
+
python mathmark_gen.py
|
| 104 |
+
```
|
| 105 |
+
|
| 106 |
+
### Design Decisions
|
| 107 |
+
|
| 108 |
+
**Left-to-right evaluation** — expressions are evaluated left-to-right (no operator precedence). Division by zero is rejected and regenerated.
|
| 109 |
+
|
| 110 |
+
**Integer-safe results** — float results are rounded to 4 decimal places; exact integer floats are cast to int.
|
| 111 |
+
|
| 112 |
+
**Operand range** — integers sampled from [-20, 20] across all stages.
|
| 113 |
+
|
| 114 |
+
**Distractor generation** — each wrong answer is generated by adding a random float offset (±0.5–15.0) to the correct answer. Integer answers get 2 integer distractors and 1 float; float answers get 2 float distractors and 1 integer. This ensures the answer type is never uniquely identifiable.
|
| 115 |
+
|
| 116 |
+
---
|
mathmark.jsonl
ADDED
|
The diff for this file is too large to render.
See raw diff
|
|
|