0:00
/
0:00
Transcript

"OpenAI-o1 AB Testing: Does the o1 model really do good reasoning in math problem solving?"

The podcast on this paper is generated with Google's Illuminate.

O1 doesn't cheat on math tests - it actually knows how to solve them

A/B testing reveals o1's true mathematical reasoning capabilities beyond memorization

https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06198

🎯 Original Problem:

OpenAI's Orion-1 (o1) model claims superior reasoning capabilities, but skeptics suggest its performance might stem from memorizing solutions rather than true reasoning abilities.

-----

🔧 Solution in this Paper:

→ Used A/B testing comparing o1's performance on two datasets: IMO problems (easily accessible) and CNT problems (less accessible but similar difficulty)

→ Implemented a 7-point grading system: 1 point for correct numerical answer, 2 points for intuitive approach, 4 points for detailed reasoning

→ Categorized problems into "search" type (finding specific solutions) and "solve" type (equations/optimization)

-----

💡 Key Insights:

→ O1 shows strong intuitive reasoning and pattern discovery capabilities

→ Performs exceptionally well on "search" type problems (~70% accuracy)

→ Struggles with rigorous proof steps and "solve" type problems (~21% accuracy)

→ Often uses trial-and-error approach instead of formal proofs

-----

📊 Results:

→ No significant performance difference between IMO (51.4%) and CNT (48%) datasets

→ T-statistics close to 0, suggesting o1 relies on reasoning rather than memorization

→ Outperforms GPT-4o's benchmark of 39.97% on both datasets

📌 NOTE - This paper is referring to 01-preview model (not the full version 01)

------

Are you into AI and LLMs❓ Join me on X/Twitter with 49K+ others, to remain on the bleeding-edge of AI every day.

𝕏/🐦 https://x.com/rohanpaul_ai

Discussion about this video