Organizations: University of Wisconsin–Madison · East China Normal University · New York University · Tongji University · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in \emph{solving} high-school mathematics, their ability to \emph{evaluate} the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{RealMath-Eval}, a rigorously annotated benchmark of 224 real-world exam responses from high schools. Our initial evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art LLM judges struggle significantly on this task, exhibiting a high Mean Squared Error (∼2.96) against expert human grading. To probe a plausible explanation, we contrast this performance with a control setting where the same judges evaluate synthetic LLM-generated solutions. We identify a stark Evaluation Gap'': judges are considerably more accurate and consistent on synthetic text (MSE $\sim$1.17) but struggle to generalize to authentic student reasoning. Through semantic embedding analysis, we find that synthetic errors suffer from a structural collapse'' into predictable, low-dimensional linear subspaces, whereas human errors form a more diverse error space. Furthermore, generative probability probes suggest that human reasoning involves significantly higher information-theoretic surprisal, indicating that student reasoning transitions are more out-of-distribution for current models. Finally, we find that surface-level style transfer fails to close this gap. Our findings suggest that current LLM evaluation pipelines relying heavily on synthetic data may not adequately capture the diversity of authentic student mathematical reasoning.
Recent advancements in large language models have led to significant improvements across various tasks, including mathematical reasoning, which is used to assess models' intelligence in logical reasoning and problem-solving. Models are evaluated on mathematical reasoning benchmarks by verifying the correctness of the final answer against a ground truth answer. A common approach for this verification is based on symbolic mathematics comparison, which fails to generalize across diverse mathematical representations and solution formats. In this work, we offer a robust and flexible alternative to rule-based symbolic mathematics comparison. We propose an LLM-based evaluation framework for evaluating model-generated answers, enabling accurate evaluation across diverse mathematical representations and answer formats. We present failure cases of symbolic evaluation in two popular frameworks, Lighteval and SimpleRL, and compare them to our approach, demonstrating clear improvements over commonly used methods. Our framework enables more reliable evaluation and benchmarking, leading to more accurate performance monitoring, which is important for advancing mathematical problem-solving and intelligent systems.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic Alignment Gap when applied to upper-undergraduate to early graduate level mathematics. To quantify this, we introduce QEDBench, the first large-scale dual-rubric alignment benchmark to systematically measure alignment with human experts on university-level math proofs by contrasting course-specific rubrics against expert common knowledge criteria. By deploying a dual-evaluation matrix (7 judges x 5 solvers) against 1,000+ hours of human evaluation, we reveal that certain frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias (up to +0.18, +0.20, +0.30, +0.36 mean score inflation, respectively). Furthermore, we uncover a critical reasoning gap in the discrete domain: while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves state-of-the-art performance (0.91 average human evaluation score), other reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 see their performance significantly degrade in discrete domains. Specifically, their average human evaluation scores drop to 0.72 and 0.63 in Discrete Math, and to 0.74 and 0.50 in Graph Theory. In addition to these research results, we also release QEDBench as a public benchmark for evaluating and improving AI judges. Our benchmark is publicly published at https://github.com/qqliu/Yale-QEDBench.
Santiago Gonzalez, Alireza Amiri Bavandpour, Peter Ye +48
Large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly capable mathematical collaborators, but static benchmarks are no longer sufficient for evaluating progress: they are often narrow in scope, quickly saturated, and rarely updated. This makes it hard to compare models reliably and track progress over time. Instead, we need evaluation platforms: continuously maintained systems that run, aggregate, and analyze evaluations across many benchmarks to give a comprehensive picture of model performance within a broad domain. In this work, we build on the original MathArena benchmark by substantially broadening its scope from final-answer olympiad problems to a continuously maintained evaluation platform for mathematical reasoning with LLMs. MathArena now covers a much wider range of tasks, including proof-based competitions, research-level arXiv problems, and formal proof generation in Lean. Additionally, we maintain a clear evaluation protocol for all models and regularly design new benchmarks as model capabilities improve to ensure that MathArena remains challenging. Notably, the strongest model, GPT-5.5, now reaches 98% on the 2026 USA Math Olympiad and 74% on research-level questions, showing that frontier models can now comfortably solve extremely challenging mathematical problems. This highlights the importance of continuously maintained evaluation platforms like MathArena to track the rapid progress of LLMs in mathematical reasoning.
Jasper Dekoninck, Nikola Jovanović, Tim Gehrunger +4