Post
274
Hey!
Me and my team recently released two benchmarks on university-level math: U-MATH (for University-MATH) and μ-MATH (for Meta U-MATH).
We're working a lot on complex reasoning for LLMs, and we were in particular interested in evaluating university-curricula math skills — in topics such as differential calculus and linear algebra — for their wide applicability and practicality.
We noticed that available benchmarks at the time were either at or below high-school level, or mainly leaning towards Olympiad-style problems, or synthetically generated from a set of templates / seeds.
We wanted focus on university curricula and we wanted "organic" variety, so we created our own benchmark using problems sourced from actual teaching materials used in top US universities — that is how U-MATH came to be.
We also, and that is my primary focus in particular, are very eager on studying and improving evaluations themselves, since the standard llm-as-a-judge approach is known to be noisy and biased, but that often remains unaccounted for. So we then created a U-MATH-derived benchmark to do "meta-evaluations" — i.e. evaluate the evaluators — which allows to quantify their error-rates, study their behaviors and biases, and so on.
I'm super excited to be sharing those publicly!
toloka/u-math
toloka/mu-math
Me and my team recently released two benchmarks on university-level math: U-MATH (for University-MATH) and μ-MATH (for Meta U-MATH).
We're working a lot on complex reasoning for LLMs, and we were in particular interested in evaluating university-curricula math skills — in topics such as differential calculus and linear algebra — for their wide applicability and practicality.
We noticed that available benchmarks at the time were either at or below high-school level, or mainly leaning towards Olympiad-style problems, or synthetically generated from a set of templates / seeds.
We wanted focus on university curricula and we wanted "organic" variety, so we created our own benchmark using problems sourced from actual teaching materials used in top US universities — that is how U-MATH came to be.
We also, and that is my primary focus in particular, are very eager on studying and improving evaluations themselves, since the standard llm-as-a-judge approach is known to be noisy and biased, but that often remains unaccounted for. So we then created a U-MATH-derived benchmark to do "meta-evaluations" — i.e. evaluate the evaluators — which allows to quantify their error-rates, study their behaviors and biases, and so on.
I'm super excited to be sharing those publicly!
toloka/u-math
toloka/mu-math
