Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

FERMAT: An Alternative to Accuracy for Numerical Reasoning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.17491 v1 pith:7RYWVTNC submitted 2023-05-27 cs.CL

FERMAT: An Alternative to Accuracy for Numerical Reasoning

classification cs.CL
keywords numericalreasoningmodelsfermataspectsevaluationapartdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

While pre-trained language models achieve impressive performance on various NLP benchmarks, they still struggle with tasks that require numerical reasoning. Recent advances in improving numerical reasoning are mostly achieved using very large language models that contain billions of parameters and are not accessible to everyone. In addition, numerical reasoning is measured using a single score on existing datasets. As a result, we do not have a clear understanding of the strengths and shortcomings of existing models on different numerical reasoning aspects and therefore, potential ways to improve them apart from scaling them up. Inspired by CheckList (Ribeiro et al., 2020), we introduce a multi-view evaluation set for numerical reasoning in English, called FERMAT. Instead of reporting a single score on a whole dataset, FERMAT evaluates models on various key numerical reasoning aspects such as number understanding, mathematical operations, and training dependency. Apart from providing a comprehensive evaluation of models on different numerical reasoning aspects, FERMAT enables a systematic and automated generation of an arbitrarily large training or evaluation set for each aspect.The datasets and codes are publicly available to generate further multi-view data for ulterior tasks and languages.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Revealing the Numeracy Gap: An Empirical Investigation of Text Embedding Models

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    Across 13 embedding models and 18 numeric formats, retrieval accuracy on the new EmbedNum-1K benchmark averages 54%, just above chance, showing that embedding models largely fail to encode numeric detail.