Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical Reasoning in Financial Document Question Answering

Conceptos Básicos

The author explores the mathematical reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) on financial tabular datasets, focusing on sensitivity to table complexity and performance variations with arithmetic reasoning steps.

Resumen

The study investigates how LLMs handle complex mathematical tasks in semi-structured tables, introducing a novel prompting technique that outperforms other baselines. The analysis covers errors in extraction, reasoning, and calculation, providing insights into model performance across different question types and reasoning steps.

The research delves into the limitations of LLMs when dealing with numerical reasoning over semi-structured data, highlighting challenges such as domain-specific knowledge requirements and multi-step reasoning difficulties. The study also outlines future directions for exploring computational models that excel in numerical reasoning tasks across various domains beyond finance.

Estadísticas

CET1 capital at Dec 31, 2017: $184,375
Total capital at Dec 31, 2016: $191,662
Tier 1 capital at Dec 31, 2017 under Basel III Advanced Transitional: $179,341

Citas

"Large Language Models are versatile decomposers for handling complex questions involving both tables and text."
"Models specifically tuned for human queries over complex documents should be considered for better backtracking capabilities."
"EEDP methodology shows promise in addressing complex mathematical reasoning tasks."

Ideas clave extraídas de

Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical Reasoning in Financial Document Question Answering

by Pragya Sriva... a las arxiv.org 03-01-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.11194.pdf

Consultas más profundas

Where do LLMs falter while performing hybrid question answering involving arithmetic operations?

In the context of hybrid question answering involving arithmetic operations, Large Language Models (LLMs) often face challenges in two main areas: incorrect extraction and incorrect reasoning.

Incorrect Extraction: This category includes errors where the model struggles to accurately identify and extract relevant information from the provided data for effective problem-solving. Subcategories under this include:

Missing/Incomplete Evidences: The model may fail to extract all necessary evidence required to derive the final answer.
Wrong Evidences: The model might extract incorrect values as supporting evidence from the premise.

Incorrect Reasoning: Errors in reasoning occur when the model has difficulty formulating an appropriate approach to solve a given problem. Sources of these errors can be:

Deficit in Domain Knowledge: When models use wrong formulas or measures due to lack of specific domain knowledge.
Question Misinterpretation: Errors arise when models interpret questions differently, leading to responses that do not align with the intended query.

These error types highlight where LLMs struggle in effectively handling complex mathematical tasks involving both structured tables and unstructured text.

Is there a risk of bias or inaccuracies introduced by large language models during mathematical calculations?

There is indeed a risk of bias or inaccuracies being introduced by large language models during mathematical calculations. Some potential factors contributing to this risk include:

Insufficient Data Coverage: Large language models rely on training data for learning patterns and making predictions. If certain mathematical scenarios are underrepresented or absent in their training data, they may produce inaccurate results for such cases.

Implicit Biases: Language models can inadvertently learn biases present in their training data, which could influence their output during mathematical calculations.

Complexity Handling: Mathematical calculations involve intricate steps that require precise execution at each stage. Large language models may struggle with maintaining accuracy across multiple steps due to inherent limitations in processing complex numerical operations.

To mitigate these risks, thorough validation processes, diverse training datasets covering various scenarios comprehensively, and continuous monitoring for biases are essential when using large language models for mathematical tasks.

How can the prompting techniques used in this study be applied to other domains beyond finance?

The prompting techniques employed in this study can be adapted and applied effectively across various domains beyond finance by tailoring them according to specific requirements:

Domain-Specific Prompting: Modify prompts based on domain-specific terminology and concepts relevant to different industries like healthcare, e-commerce, or scientific research.

Data Representation: Adjust prompts considering different types of structured data formats prevalent in diverse fields such as images (for medical imaging), code snippets (for programming tasks), or sensor readings (in IoT applications).

3Task Complexity Adaptation: Customize prompt structures based on varying levels of task complexity encountered across different domains; simpler prompts for basic queries and more elaborate ones for advanced problem-solving tasks.
By customizing prompting strategies according to distinct domain needs while ensuring alignment with specific task requirements outside finance-related contexts, these techniques can enhance performance and adaptability of large language models across a wide range of applications beyond financial document analysis."