WirelessMathBench-XL: An Auditable Benchmark for Wireless Mathematical Reasoning

Xin Li; Mengbing Liu; Yiyang Zhu; Wenhe Zhang; Li Wei; Jiancheng An; Chau Yuen

cs.LGSep 27, 2025

WirelessMathBench-XL: An Auditable Benchmark for Wireless Mathematical Reasoning

Authors: Xin Li, Mengbing Liu, Yiyang Zhu, Wenhe Zhang, Li Wei, Jiancheng An, Chau Yuen

Organizations: Nanyang Technological University

Abstract

Technical-domain benchmarks constructed from arXiv papers can overlap the same public text used in LLM pretraining. Auditing this risk at training-corpus scale requires searching billions of corpus n-grams while retaining per-item evidence that users can inspect and recompute. We contribute a reverse-probe audit at a fixed 13-gram threshold: it indexes benchmark prompts, streams public pretraining corpora, and emits per-problem prompt-surface lexical-overlap metadata with memory that scales with the benchmark. We instantiate the protocol in WirelessMathBench-XL, a 4,027-problem wireless mathematical-reasoning benchmark built from 836 retained arXiv papers across 20 subfields. Against 12.9B streamed 13-grams from RedPajama-arXiv, the audit identifies a strict zero-hit view S0 covering 3,853 problems (95.7%). Filtering to S0 changes accuracy by less than 1 pp for every evaluated model; frontier calibration rows form one high-accuracy cluster between 86.5% and 91.3%, not a resolved rank order. Only 30/800 test items carry detected overlap. Under an all-flagged-correct counterfactual, their largest possible positive score inflation is 0.31-0.51 pp for the frontier rows, so full-versus-S0 is a bounded, structurally underpowered stability summary rather than a contamination-effect test or cleanliness claim. The audit channel does not cover paraphrase, target-answer, post-training, or closed-corpus exposure. The release includes source-paper identifiers, verifier-facing ground truths, audit and threshold metadata, filtered views, a paper-disjoint sensitivity view, evaluation traces, paired-bootstrap scripts, training recipes, Croissant metadata, and a Datasheet for Datasets.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: WirelessMathBench-XL construction pipeline. We filter wireless-relevant arXiv papers, extract structured mathematical records from LaTeX sources, generate three verifier-facing task formats, and apply automated and expert QA before attaching audit metadata per problem. Counts inside the MCQ, Fill-in, and FEC boxes denote pre-QA generated candidates; the final release contains $4{,}027$ accepted problems.

$n$	$S_{0}$ count	$S_{0}$ %	Flip vs. $13$	Post-snap. %	Pre-snap. %
$8$	$264/800$	$33.0$	$63.2$	$64.5$	$74.9$
$10$	$600/800$	$75.0$	$21.2$	$23.6$	$29.2$
$12$	$745/800$	$93.1$	$3.1$	$6.8$	$7.2$
$13$	$770/800$	$96.2$	$0.0$	$3.1$	$5.6$
$15$	$790/800$	$98.8$	$2.5$	$1.3$	$1.0$

Table 1: Sensitivity of the strict zero-hit label to

n

-gram length on the

800

-item evaluation test split, with a retrospective collision-rate proxy. Post-snap. is the flag rate among test problems whose source papers postdate the RedPajama-ArXiv snapshot (7 March 2023) and so cannot match their own source; Pre-snap. is the flag rate among earlier papers. The release uses

n=13

as a fixed operational threshold, not a validated optimum.

Model	Size	Tok	Full %	$\mathcal{S}_{0}$ %	$\Delta$ (pp) [ $95\%$ CI]	Public %
GPT- $5$ -mini	–	$16$ k	91.25	91.69	$-0.44$ $[-1.05,+0.08]$	90.32
GPT- $5.2$ -chat	–	$16$ k	90.75	90.91	$-0.16$ $[-0.67,+0.26]$	90.00
GPT- $4.1$ -mini	–	$16$ k	89.62	89.35	$+0.27$ $[-0.03,+0.52]$	89.35
Gemini- $2.5$ -Pro	–	$16$ k	86.88	87.01	$-0.14$ $[-0.70,+0.33]$	85.48
Gemini- $2.5$ -Flash	–	$16$ k	86.50	86.49	$+0.01$ $[-0.49,+0.43]$	84.19

Table 2: Frontier calibration at a

16

k answer budget. Full is the

800

-item test split,

\mathcal{S}_{0}

is the

770

-item strict zero-hit subset, and

\Delta=\mathrm{Full}-\mathcal{S}_{0}

with paired-bootstrap

95\%

CIs; filtering moves every row by at most

0.44

pp. Public is accuracy on the

310

-item public test subset (Appendix L ), the externally reproducible view.

General-purpose calibration models
Row	Model	Size	Tok	Full %	$\mathcal{S}_{0}$ %	$\Delta$ (pp) [ $95\%$ CI]	Public %
D1	Grok- $4$ -Fast	–	$\phantom{0}2$ k	88.00	88.31	$-0.31$ $[-0.90,+0.20]$	84.84
D2	DeepSeek-V $3.1$	671B	$\phantom{0}2$ k	84.88	84.42	$+0.46$ $[+0.14,+0.75]$	83.87
D3	Claude- $4.0$ -Sonnet	–	$\phantom{0}2$ k	83.00	82.73	$+0.27$ $[-0.20,+0.67]$	82.26
D4	o $4$ -mini	–	$\phantom{0}2$ k	81.88	82.08	$-0.20$ $[-0.81,+0.34]$	79.35
D5	DeepSeek-R $1^{\dagger}$	671B	$\phantom{0}2$ k	79.12	79.09	$+0.03$ $[-0.55,+0.55]$	77.74

Table 3: Locked

2

k calibration rows under the same full-vs-

\mathcal{S}_{0}

protocol. Rows D1–D9 are general-purpose calibration rows and D10–D14 are open/reference rows.

\dagger

marks construction-involved models retained only as descriptive calibration; they are excluded from comparative claims. Public is accuracy on the

310

-item public test subset (Appendix L ). Per-format breakdowns are in Appendix K .

$n$	$\|\mathcal{S}_{0}^{(n)}\|$	$\mathcal{S}_{0}^{(n)}$ %	GPT- $5$ -mini	GPT- $5.2$ -chat	GPT- $4.1$ -mini	Gemini-Pro	Gemini-Flash
8	264/800	33.0	$-0.04$	$+2.49$	$+1.75$	$+1.27$	$+1.27$
10	600/800	75.0	$-0.42$	$-0.75$	$+0.96$	$-0.62$	$+0.17$
12	745/800	93.1	$-0.29$	$-0.26$	$+0.50$	$-0.10$	$+0.19$
13	770/800	96.2	$-0.44$	$-0.16$	$+0.27$	$-0.14$	$+0.01$
15	790/800	98.8	$-0.14$	$-0.14$	$+0.00$	$+0.04$	$+0.04$

Table 4: Threshold sensitivity of the frontier full-vs-cleaned comparison. Each cell is

\Delta=\mathrm{Full}-\mathcal{S}_{0}^{(n)}

in percentage points using released

16

k frontier verdicts; paired-bootstrap intervals are released in the accompanying CSV.

Model	MCQ	Fill-in	FEC	Overall
WirelessMathLM- $7$ B + GRPO	48.12	50.63	40.84	47.88
DeepSeekMath- $7$ B-RL	52.63	41.39	31.94	41.00
Qwen $2.5$ -Math- $7$ B-Inst.	47.37	38.03	39.79	40.00
WirelessMathLM- $3$ B + GRPO	29.32	28.15	16.23	25.50

Table 5: Per-format breakdown for the locked

2

k reference rows. The judged open-form columns are descriptive release-split measurements, not paper-disjoint model rankings.

Model	PD %	Rest %	$\Delta$ (pp) [ $95\%$ CI]
GPT- $5$ -mini	97.1	87.9	$+9.2$ $[+1.9,+13.8]$
Grok- $4$ -Fast	82.4	88.3	$-5.9$ $[-19.2,+6.4]$
DeepSeek-V $3.1$	85.3	84.9	$+0.4$ $[-12.5,+11.6]$
WirelessMathLM- $7$ B + GRPO	58.8	47.4	$+11.4$ $[-5.6,+28.4]$
DeepSeekMath- $7$ B-RL	58.8	40.2	$+18.6$ $[+1.5,+35.2]$
Qwen $2.5$ -Math- $7$ B-Instruct	38.2	40.1	$-1.8$ $[-18.3,+15.5]$

Table 6: Source-paper-disjoint sensitivity on the locked

2

k evaluation table. Only

34

test items come from papers absent from the training pool, so the slice is a sensitivity view rather than a replacement leaderboard.

SFT ablation, Qwen $2.5$ - $3$ B (peak across $6$ epochs)
Base	Base %	+GRPO %	$\Delta$ (rel.)
Qwen $2.5$ - $0.5$ B	13.38	14.87	+1.49 ( $+11\%$ )
Qwen $2.5$ - $3$ B	12.37	25.12	+12.75 ( $+103\%$ )
Qwen $3$ - $4$ B	13.63	17.87	+4.24 ( $+31\%$ )
Qwen $2.5$ - $7$ B	21.88	39.50	+17.62 ( $+81\%$ )
SFT (Epoch 1)	—	18.62	—

Table 7: Training-time GRPO checks under greedy model selection. These values are separate from the locked

T{=}0.6

+judge calibration scores; the

0.5

B row remains near the floor and is included for completeness.

Appendix figures & tables12 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Score	Criteria
1 - Invalid	Problem statement or solution is clearly wrong or contradictory; Not related to wireless communications domain; Cannot be used as a valid question
2 - Poor	Statement correct but problem too trivial (answerable instantly); Problem too vague or nearly impossible to answer correctly; Very little learning or evaluation value
3 - Acceptable	Statement and solution reasonable with no major errors; Difficulty and relevance are average; Can be kept but adds limited value (baseline quality)
4 - Good	Clear and well-structured problem; Relevant to domain and moderately challenging; Provides meaningful assessment of understanding; Worth keeping and recommending
5 - Excellent	Highly relevant to the domain; Strong depth, creativity, or insight required; Excellent for differentiating levels of understanding; Strongly recommended for inclusion

Appendix

Table 8: Detailed expert question quality assessment rubric

Quality Level	Question Content	LLM Assessment
High Quality	Background: Federated fine-tuning system with low-rank adaptation matrices $\mathbf{A}_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times r}$ , $\mathbf{B}_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times d}$ Question: Which term completes: $\mathbf{W}+[\text{MASK}]$ ? Options: A) $\mathbf{A}_{k}\mathbf{B}_{k}$ B) $\mathbf{B}_{k}\mathbf{A}_{k}$ Human: 4/5	LLM Score: 4/5 Strengths: Clear structure, complete context, accurate answer, rigorous notation Weaknesses: Could benefit from brief explanation of low-rank adaptation significance Agreement: $\checkmark$
Medium Quality	Background: H-NOMA system with variable definitions partially provided Question: Fill in [MASK] for the equation Human: 2/5	LLM Score: 3/5 Strengths: Wireless relevance, accurate answer Weaknesses: Ambiguous [MASK] usage, lacks clarity in instructions Technical Issues: Missing variable definitions Disagreement: LLM too optimistic
Low Quality	Background: Transformer model context with incomplete variable definitions Question: What replaces the “full key matrix”? Human: 1/5	LLM Score: 3/5 Strengths: Clear structure, accurate answer Weaknesses: Limited wireless relevance, focuses more on tensor parallelism Technical Issues: “Full key matrix” not defined Bias: LLM shows optimistic scoring pattern

Appendix

Table 9: Illustrative LLM-assisted annotation checks across quality levels.

Model Evaluated	LLM Cases	GPT-4.1-mini	Claude-3-Haiku	Gemini-2.0-Flash
GPT-5 base	270	41.11%	56.67%	42.22%
Gemini-2.5 Pro	183	53.01%	55.74%	56.28%
Claude-Sonnet-4	293	41.64%	60.75%	45.05%

Appendix

Table 10: Cross-evaluator agreement on the LLM-judged subset. GPT-5 (base) is included as a verifier-bias probe target, not as a current leaderboard row (see Tabs. 2 and 3 ).

#	Model	Size	MCQ	Fill-in	FEC	Overall
1	GPT- $5.2$ -chat	–	93.98	89.08	92.67	90.75
2	GPT- $5$ -mini	–	92.48	86.97	88.48	88.25
3	Grok- $4$ -Fast	–	87.22	88.24	87.96	88.00
4	DeepSeek-V $3.1$	671B	85.71	85.71	82.20	84.88
5	Claude-Sonnet- $4$	–	84.21	84.03	79.58	83.00
6	o $4$ -mini	–	83.46	83.82	75.92	81.88

Appendix

Table 11: Locked

2

k per-format evaluation on the

800

-item release test split. Rows are ranked by overall accuracy; bold marks the best score in each format. Gemini-

2.5

-Pro † is retained as a locked-budget calibration row, but Appendix J reports

2

k truncation on

3.4\%

of its items.

Model $i$	$\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_{0}}$ (pp)	$95\%$ CI (pp)
GPT- $5$ -mini	$+39.74$	$[+35.97,+43.51]$
Grok- $4$ -Fast	$+39.61$	$[+35.71,+43.51]$
DeepSeek-V $3.1$	$+35.71$	$[+31.56,+39.87]$
Claude- $4.0$ -Sonnet	$+34.03$	$[+30.00,+37.92]$
o $4$ -mini	$+33.38$	$[+29.48,+37.40]$
Gemini- $2.5$ -Flash	$+31.82$	$[+27.79,+35.84]$

Appendix

Table 12: Selected paired-bootstrap comparisons against WirelessMathLM-

7

B on the strict zero-hit subset. The comparison uses

10{,}000

resamples over the

770

paired

\mathcal{S}_{0}

test items under the locked

2

k protocol.

WirelessMathLM	MMLU	GPQA	IFEval	HumanEval
Qwen $2.5$ - $3$ B-Base	42.49	23.74	26.99	61.59
+ GRPO	45.30	28.28	32.90	65.24
$\Delta$	+2.81	+4.54	+5.91	+3.65
Qwen $2.5$ - $7$ B-Base	38.84	28.79	36.06	63.41
+ GRPO	50.74	38.89	35.67	64.63
$\Delta$	+11.90	+10.10	$-0.39$	+1.22

Appendix

Table 13: General-purpose benchmark check after WirelessMathBench-XL GRPO. The only negative delta is

-0.39

pp on IFEval for the

7

B model.

WirelessMathLM	MATH- $500$	Minerva-Math	OlympiadBench	AMC	AIME- $24$	Avg.
Qwen $2.5$ - $7$ B-Base	52.00	12.13	25.33	27.71	6.67	24.77
+ GRPO	67.00	14.34	30.22	40.96	13.33	33.17
$\Delta$	+15.00	+2.21	+4.89	+13.25	+6.66	+8.40
Qwen $2.5$ - $3$ B-Base	41.60	5.88	14.67	18.07	0.00	16.04
+ GRPO	58.20	9.93	22.96	21.69	0.00	22.56
$\Delta$	+16.60	+4.05	+8.29	+3.62	0.00	+6.52

Appendix

Table 14: Descriptive general-math check after WirelessMathBench-XL GRPO. No general-math problems appear in WirelessMathLM training data, but the Math12K GRPO control was not scored on these five benchmarks; the rows are therefore regression checks rather than an attribution claim.

ID	Model	Tok	Full %	Public %	$95\%$ CI	$\Delta$ (pp)
–	GPT- $5$ -mini	$16$ k	91.25	90.32	$[86.77,93.55]$	$-0.93$
–	GPT- $5.2$ -chat	$16$ k	90.75	90.00	$[86.45,93.23]$	$-0.75$
–	GPT- $4.1$ -mini	$16$ k	89.62	89.35	$[85.81,92.58]$	$-0.27$
–	Gemini- $2.5$ -Pro	$16$ k	86.88	85.48	$[81.61,89.35]$	$-1.39$
–	Gemini- $2.5$ -Flash	$16$ k	86.50	84.19	$[80.00,88.06]$	$-2.31$
D1	Grok- $4$ -Fast	$\phantom{0}2$ k	88.00	84.84	$[80.65,88.71]$	$-3.16$

Appendix

Table 15: Accuracy on the full

800

-item test split and on the

310

-item public test subset, re-scored from archived per-item verdicts. CI is a

95\%

bootstrap interval over public-subset items (

10{,}000

resamples, seed

0

);

\Delta=\mathrm{Public}-\mathrm{Full}

. Frontier rows (top) use a

16

k answer budget; D1–D14 are the locked-

2

k rows of Tab. 3 .

\dagger

marks construction-involved models.

Model	$n_{\text{total}}$	$n_{\text{valid}}$	Empty-body %	Acc. on $n_{\text{valid}}$
gemini-3.1-pro-preview	800	604	$24.5\%$	$89.6\%$
gemini-3-flash-preview	800	450	$43.8\%$	$89.3\%$

Appendix

Table 16: Gemini-3 preview rows excluded from the headline calibration tables. Both preview APIs return many empty response bodies; conditional accuracy is computed only over non-empty responses.

Category	Count	%	Base (7B)	+GRPO	$\Delta$ Abs	$\Delta$ Rel
Channel Estimation	160	20.0%	22.50%	36.25%	+13.75%	+61.1%
Beamforming	113	14.1%	18.58%	43.36%	+24.78%	+133.4%
Resource Allocation	110	13.8%	21.82%	39.09%	+17.27%	+79.2%
MIMO/Massive MIMO	104	13.0%	23.08%	43.27%	+20.19%	+87.5%
Information Theory	103	12.9%	21.36%	46.60%	+25.24%	+118.2%
RIS/IRS	98	12.3%	17.35%	33.67%	+16.32%	+94.1%

Appendix

Table 17: Problem-level performance by multi-label subdomain tag on the 800-problem test set. This is a descriptive release-split breakdown, not a paper-disjoint or memorisation analysis.

Hyperparameter	Value
Base Model	Qwen2.5-Base {0.5B, 3B, 7B}
	+ Qwen3-4B †
Optimizer	AdamW
Learning Rate	$1\times 10^{-6}$
Weight Decay	0.1
LR Scheduler	Cosine Annealing

Appendix

Table 18: Hyperparameters for GRPO Training

Threat	Current treatment	Remaining limitation / next step
Prompt-surface exact overlap	Reverse-probe RedPajama-arXiv audit with fixed $13$ -gram threshold; release ships $\mathcal{S}_{0}/\mathcal{S}_{1}$ labels and rebuild scripts.	The bound is channel-specific and threshold-specific; users can tighten or replace the released filter.
Answer-surface exposure	correct_answer is deliberately excluded from the v $1.0$ prompt-surface audit; a narrow answer-side $13$ -gram lower-bound check is reported separately.	A fuller target-equation / answer-surface audit is needed before claiming anything about answer exposure.
Paraphrase or near-duplicate exposure	Limitations are stated in the main text and audit appendix.	Approximate near-duplicate, prompt-rewrite, or embedding-style probes are complementary future audit channels, not v $1.0$ results.
Closed corpora and alternate arXiv mirrors	RedPajama-arXiv is the release-defining public slice; OpenWebMath is off-domain corroboration and algebraic-stack is a negative control.	Closed/proprietary mixtures and unprobed mirrors can contain exposure that public-corpus labels miss.
Verifier / judge dependence	Exact matching and canonicalisation precede a bounded GPT-4.1-mini semantic fallback; cross-judge variation and an exact-format lower-bound check are reported.	The $4.6$ – $7.3\%$ variation is not a human/CAS precision-recall estimate; held-out verifier calibration remains future work.
Release-split dependence	All records retain paper_id ; a $34$ -item source-paper-disjoint sensitivity view is materialized in the release.	v $1.0$ training rows are release-split learnability checks, not source-paper-disjoint generalisation estimates.

Appendix

Table 19: Threats to validity and how they are handled in the v

1.0

release.

Explore similar work

LemmaBench: A Live, Research-Level Benchmark to Evaluate LLM Capabilities in Mathematics
Feb 27, 2026Antoine Peyronnet, Fabian Gloeckle, Amaury HayatResearch-Level Mathematics Theorem Proving
1Ecole Normale Superieure de Rennes · 2Ecole des Ponts Paris · 3Korean Institute for Advanced Study
LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Research-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Proof Sketches
Apr 2, 2026Linyang He, Qiyao Yu, Hanze Dong +5Research-Level Mathematics Large Language Model Benchmarks
Columbia University · Microsoft Research · University of Amsterdam
Beyond Benchmarks: MathArena as an Evaluation Platform for Mathematics with LLMs
May 1, 2026Jasper Dekoninck, Nikola Jovanović, Tim Gehrunger +4Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks Mathematical Reasoning
ETH Zurich · INSAIT · Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"

Feb 27, 2026, cs.AIJ/K move · Enter open · S save

LemmaBench: A Live, Research-Level Benchmark to Evaluate LLM Capabilities in Mathematics

Antoine Peyronnet, Fabian Gloeckle, Amaury Hayat

1Ecole Normale Superieure de Rennes · 2Ecole des Ponts Paris · 3Korean Institute for Advanced Study

Research-Level Mathematics Theorem Proving Mathematics Large Language Model Benchmarks

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

We present a new approach for benchmarking Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities on research-level mathematics. Existing benchmarks largely rely on static, hand-curated sets of contest or textbook-style problems as proxies for mathematical research. Instead, we establish an updatable benchmark evaluating models directly on the latest research results in mathematics. This consists of an automatic pipeline that extracts lemmas from arXiv and rewrites them into self-contained statements by making all assumptions and required definitions explicit. It results in a benchmark that can be updated regularly with new problems taken directly from human mathematical research, while previous instances can be used for training without compromising future evaluations. We benchmark current state-of-the-art LLMs, which obtain around 10-15

\%

accuracy in theorem proving (pass@1) depending on the model, showing that there is currently a large margin of progression for LLMs to reach human-level proving capabilities in a research context.

Abstract

Explore similar work

LemmaBench: A Live, Research-Level Benchmark to Evaluate LLM Capabilities in Mathematics

LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Research-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Proof Sketches

Beyond Benchmarks: MathArena as an Evaluation Platform for Mathematics with LLMs