Likelihood scoring for continuations of mathematical text: a self-supervised benchmark with tests for shortcut vulnerabilities

This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths. PRM guided search avoids this by scoring candidate continuations during generation, but requires a reward model trained with step-level labels. We propose Chunk-Level Guided Generation, a training-free alternative that uses an off-the-shelf large language model as a process scorer. At each step, a small model samples k fixed-length candidate chunks, while the larger model scores the candidates using likelihoods without generating any text. The selected chunk is committed before the next step, steering generation before errors can propagate. We instantiate this framework with two selection rules: Likelihood-Guided Selection (LGS), which selects the chunk with the highest length-normalized large-model log-probability, and Contrastive-Guided Selection (CGS), which subtracts the small model's log-probability to favor chunks where the large model's preference diverges from the small model's. We show that scoring variable-length reasoning steps with large-model likelihoods is unreliable due to a systematic length bias that persists even after length normalization, and that fixed-length chunks avoid this confound. On GSM8K, MATH, Minerva Math, AMC23, and AIME24 with Qwen2.5-1.5B guided by Qwen2.5-32B and Llama-3.2-1B guided by Llama-3.1-70B, CGS outperforms majority voting by up to 28 pp and, under matched guidance budgets, matches or outperforms Qwen2.5-Math-PRM-72B guided search on most benchmarks without reward-model training. With Qwen2.5-7B guided by Qwen2.5-72B, CGS reaches 81.8% on MATH and 63.6% on Minerva Math at k=16, surpassing majority voting by 4--6 pp. Finally, Chunk-Level Guided Generation produces substantially shorter reasoning traces than PRM guided search.

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.