←back to thread

296 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
smeeth ◴[] No.44368465[source]
The main limitation of tokenization is actually logical operations, including arithmetic. IIRC most of the poor performance of LLMs for math problems can be attributed to some very strange things that happen when you do math with tokens.

I'd like to see a math/logic bench appear for tokenization schemes that captures this. BPB/perplexity is fine, but its not everything.

replies(6): >>44368862 #>>44369438 #>>44371781 #>>44373480 #>>44374125 #>>44375446 #
calibas ◴[] No.44368862[source]
It's a non-deterministic language model, shouldn't we expect mediocre performance in math? It seems like the wrong tool for the job...
replies(4): >>44368958 #>>44368999 #>>44369121 #>>44372463 #
currymj ◴[] No.44372463[source]
thanks to training data + this being a popular benchmark, they're pretty good at grinding through symbolic mathematical derivations, which is often useful if you want an explanation of a mathematical concept. there's not really a better tool for this job, except for "a textbook which answers the exact question you have".

but from time to time, doing this does require doing arithmetic correctly (to correctly add two exponents or whatever). so it would be nice to be able to trust that.

i imagine there are other uses for basic arithmetic too, QA applications over data that quotes statistics and such.

replies(1): >>44372556 #
1. agarren ◴[] No.44372556[source]
> but from time to time, doing this does require doing arithmetic correctly (to correctly add two exponents or whatever). so it would be nice to be able to trust that.

It sounds weird, but try writing your problem in LaTeX - I don’t know why, I’ve found a couple models to be incredibly capable at solving mathematical problems if you write them in LaTeX.