Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Report
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

Long-Context Mathematical Reasoning Robustness of Gemini 1.5 Pro vs. GPT-4 on MathQA

Authors: Assignee Research;

Long-Context Mathematical Reasoning Robustness of Gemini 1.5 Pro vs. GPT-4 on MathQA

Abstract

This report synthesises findings from 15 peer-reviewed papers addressing the following research question: How robust are the reasoning capabilities of Gemini 1.5 Pro on long-context mathematical problem-solving tasks compared to specialized models like GPT-4 when evaluated on the MathQA benchmark. 15 claims were extracted from source literature; 12 were independently verified against retrieved documents. An automated multi-reviewer quality assessment produced a score of 8.4/10. This report is a machine-generated literature synthesis and does not constitute original research.Research goal: How robust are the reasoning capabilities of Gemini 1.5 Pro on long-context mathematical problem-solving tasks compared to specialized models like GPT-4 when evaluated on the MathQA benchmark?Autonomous literature synthesis. Automated review score: 8.4/10. Full text and citation available at Assignee Research.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback