MAMath-Bench: Process-Aware and Robust Evaluation of Multimodal Multi-Agent Mathematical Reasoning

Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive reasoning abilities; but they are still susceptible to hallucinations, intermediate reasoning mistakes, and unreliable reasoning results in complex mathematical reasoning problems. In this study, we introduce a critic-based heterogeneous multi-agent approach to improve the dependability of mathematical reasoning. This framework incorporates several LLM agents of different specialties and employs a critic-driven adaptive learning system to assess and guide the reasoning process based on intermediate feedback. The system adopts a generator-validator framework, with the validator not only determining correctness but also offering critiques to guide regeneration of solutions. This allows for adaptive error correction and prevents error cascading. Our experiments on the GSM8K benchmark show that the proposed method achieves up to 13% accuracy improvement over single-shot and non-critic models. Additionally, findings suggest that heterogeneity and critique reduce the need for large models, allowing smaller models to perform on par. Ablation studies reveal the main performance gains are due to the critic-based feedback loop and not model size. In summary, the proposed approach showcases the benefits of combining heterogeneous multi-agent collaboration and critique to obtain reliable and interpretable reasoning systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from performing end-to-end mathematical reasoning to integrating agentic intelligence. However, most existing math benchmarks evaluate only final answers. This outcome-oriented evaluation provides limited diagnostic value for identifying process-level failures or rigorous logic, failing to guide the transformation of LLMs into robust agents. To bridge this gap, we present a process-level benchmark designed to evaluate the inherent agentic mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our framework aligns problem-solving agentic behaviors with a structured taxonomy of reusable mathematical atomic capabilities. We design a comprehensive suite of planning, action, and feedback tasks across both textual and multimodal contexts, supported by an automated pipeline that synthesizes high-quality trajectories and produces fine-grained annotations via controlled LLM rewriting. Experiments reveal that models with similar end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles. This demonstrates that process-level evaluation is crucial for interpreting the true potential of LLMs and guiding the development of next-generation mathematical agents.

Mathematical reasoning is essential for problem-solving in education, science, and industry, serving as a crucial benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence systems. As Large Language Models (LLMs) improve their reasoning capabilities, understanding how well they perform mathematical reasoning has become increasingly important. This survey synthesizes recent advancements in mathematical reasoning with LLMs through a structured analysis of datasets, architectures, training strategies, and evaluation protocols. Our systematic review encompasses approximately 120 peer-reviewed studies and preprints, examining the evolution of this research area and providing a unified analytical framework to understand current progress and limitations. Our study particularly introduces a unified taxonomy of mathematical datasets, distinguishing between pretraining corpora, supervised fine-tuning resources, and evaluation benchmarks across varying levels of reasoning complexity. A systematic analysis of reasoning architectures and training strategies, including tool integration, verifier-guided reasoning, and parameter-efficient adaptation, is presented to assess their effects on reasoning robustness and generalization. Moreover, a comparative evaluation of existing metrics highlights the gap between final-answer accuracy and process-level reasoning verification. By synthesizing insights across these areas, our analysis identifies recurring failure modes, such as reasoning faithfulness issues, benchmark biases, and generalization limitations, and outlines key research directions toward improving symbolic grounding, evaluation reliability, and the development of more robust and trustworthy LLM-based reasoning systems.