Ask-E: An Environment for Calibrated Question Generation
Authors: Sarah Pratt, Jae Sung Park, Scott Geng, Ali Farhadi
Organizations: University of Washington · 2Allen Institute for AI
Abstract
Today, we improve models by training and evaluating them on problems at the frontier of their abilities. Creating such problems is itself a demanding task, requiring the ability to probe model limits and generalize beyond existing question distributions. It also means placing problems at a precise difficulty level, which requires understanding what it takes to solve them. In short, generating problems calibrated to a model's current frontier demands capability beyond it, an increasingly burdensome constraint as models improve. Our key insight is that we can leverage this constraint to our advantage: a model that can generate problems consistently calibrated to a given frontier must possess capability beyond it. Accordingly, we present Ask-E, an environment that benchmarks and trains models on their ability to write questions at a given skill level, rather than answer them. Concretely, we define target skill levels as ranges bounded by the capabilities of two existing language models. A generated question is successfully calibrated if exactly one of the two models can solve it, placing it precisely within the target range and differentiating the capabilities of these models. Ask-E serves both as a benchmark and a training environment, where models generate problems calibrated to a variety of skill levels. We find that even frontier models achieve below 50% calibration on the benchmark, leaving significant headroom to measure future progress. We also show that training on this environment leads to improvements across a number of downstream math benchmarks even with no new math data, no interaction with stronger models, and no correctness-based reward.
As frontier language models attain near-ceiling performance on static mathematical benchmarks, existing evaluations are increasingly unable to differentiate model capabilities, largely because they cast models solely as solvers of fixed problem sets. We introduce MathDuels, a self-play benchmark in which models occupy dual roles: each authors math problems under adversarial prompting and solves problems authored by every other participant. Problems are produced through a three-stage generation pipeline (meta-prompting, problem generation, and difficulty amplification), and validated by an independent verifier that excludes ill-posed questions. A Rasch model (Rasch, 1993) jointly estimates solver abilities and problem difficulties; author quality is derived from the difficulties of each model's authored problems. Experiments across 19 frontier models reveal that authoring and solving capabilities are partially decoupled, and that dual-role evaluation reveals capability separations invisible in single-role benchmarks. As newer models enter the arena, they produce problems that defeat previously dominant solvers, so the benchmark's difficulty co-evolves with participant strength rather than saturating at a fixed ceiling. We host a public leaderboard that updates as new models are released.
Mathematical reasoning benchmarks are vital for evaluating large language models (LLMs), but many are static and repeatedly exposed through public evaluation and training pipelines, making it difficult to separate genuine reasoning from memorization. Meanwhile, manually constructing new math problems with reliable answers remains costly. We introduce ReverseMath, a scalable method for generating new math problems through answer inversion. Given a problem and its answer, ReverseMath masks a numerical value in the original problem, treats the original answer as a known condition, and rewrites the problem so that the masked value becomes the new answer. The generated problem reverses the original input-output relation, making its answer known by construction. We study ReverseMath for both evaluation and training. For evaluation, paired original/reversed problems reveal substantial behavioral shifts: models sometimes fail on reversed problems and even incorrectly output the original answer, suggesting memorization-like behavior. For training, ReverseMath provides automatically labeled reversed problems as data augmentation for reinforcement learning (RL). Experiments show that including ReverseMath-generated data improves mathematical reasoning performance across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating its value as both an analysis tool and a scalable source of verifiable training data.
Teaching a language model a skill it has not mastered is obstructed by three recurring difficulties: training data is scarce, ground-truth reasoning traces are usually unavailable, and models often exhibit an apparent ceiling beyond which additional data yields no further improvement. We study these difficulties in a controlled setting, fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B on competition mathematics (AIME), a task on which it initially solves only 5.6% of problems (pass@1). To address data scarcity, we introduce Question-begets-Question (QbQ), a scalable procedure in which a teacher transforms existing problems into diverse variants that probe the same underlying skills; to model the absence of oracle reasoning, we train exclusively via reinforcement learning on problem statements and final answers, never on teacher reasoning traces. Static training on such data, however, plateaus well short of the task: real-plus-synthetic augmentation and non-curriculum QbQ generated synthetic data training cap pass@1 at 12.5% and 14.5% respectively, despite large increases in data. Our central finding is that this ceiling is not intrinsic to the model. We propose a self-evolving curriculum that, each round, evaluates the current checkpoint, seeds QbQ from the problems it can mostly get right, and trains on the resulting variants; under an identical data budget, this breaks the ceiling and lifts pass@1 to 16.5% with no sign of saturation after 20 rounds. Counterintuitively, we find that models improve when trained on variants of problems they can mostly get right, and that models trained this way go on to solve harder problems never seen during training.