Are Large Language Models Good Statisticians?
Yizhang Zhu, Shiyin Du, Boyan Li, Yuyu Luo, Nan Tang

TL;DR
This paper evaluates the statistical analysis capabilities of Large Language Models using a new benchmark, revealing significant performance gaps and highlighting differences in error types compared to humans.
Contribution
Introduces StatQA, a comprehensive benchmark for assessing LLMs on statistical tasks, and provides systematic analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.
Findings
GPT-4o achieves only 64.83% accuracy on StatQA.
Fine-tuned open-source LLMs outperform in-context learning models.
Humans mainly make statistical task confusion errors, LLMs make applicability errors.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a range of scientific tasks including mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Despite their successes, the effectiveness of LLMs in handling complex statistical tasks remains systematically under-explored. To bridge this gap, we introduce StatQA, a new benchmark designed for statistical analysis tasks. StatQA comprises 11,623 examples tailored to evaluate LLMs' proficiency in specialized statistical tasks and their applicability assessment capabilities, particularly for hypothesis testing methods. We systematically experiment with representative LLMs using various prompting strategies and show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4o achieve a best performance of only 64.83%, indicating significant room for improvement. Notably, while open-source LLMs (e.g. LLaMA-3) show limited capability, those…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Natural Language Processing Techniques
