cs.CLNov 5, 2026

Terminal-style Mathematical Modeling Bench: The First Agentic and Verifiable Benchmark for Mathematical Modeling

Authors: Xiaojun Wu, Cehao Yang, Xuhui Jiang, Chengjin Xu, Jia Li, Jian Guo

Organizations: IDEA Research · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · DataArcTech Ltd.

Abstract

Mathematical modeling turns an open-ended real-world problem into assumptions, a model, a solution, and a defended recommendation, and its answers matter only if they are both close to a credible reference and physically feasible; existing benchmarks either score solver fragments or grade reports with an LLM judge, leaving those numbers unchecked. We introduce TB-MathModel (the Terminal-style Mathematical Modeling Bench), the first benchmark to make complete contest-style modeling problems agentic, verifiable, and terminal at once, over 18 real CUMCM and MCM problems (2023--2025). Each task ships the verbatim statement, official attachments, and figures in a containerized terminal; the agent returns one JSON artifact, scored on the numeric core of the final question against a reproduction of the Outstanding-award paper. Two design choices distinguish it: direction-aware, one-sided scoring, which never penalises beating the anchor, and two-layer feasibility verification---a programmatic gate over six decidable invariant forms plus 624 Lean~4 obligations---with a hard gate that zeroes infeasible answers. Each task is scored against a panel of human outstanding papers rather than one, so a model must be close to many accepted answers; across seven multimodal entries (three seeds each) the strongest reach a multi-reference O-Eval of 64.58%, while the $2.54 open model holds 59.81% at 1/1001/100 the cost. TB-MathModel turns the numeric core of modeling into a reproducible, machine-checkable signal for measuring long-horizon modeling competence and for collecting agent trajectories. The source code is available at https://github.com/wxj630/terminal-bench-math-modeling.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables12 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Apr 23, 2026

MathDuels: Evaluating LLMs as Problem Posers and Solvers

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.
Apr 6, 2026

How Far Are We? Systematic Evaluation of LLMs vs. Human Experts in Mathematical Contest in Modeling

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on reasoning benchmarks, yet their ability to solve real-world problems requiring end-to-end workflows remains unclear. Mathematical modeling competitions provide a stringent testbed for evaluating such end-to-end problem-solving capability. We propose a problem-oriented, stage-wise evaluation framework that assesses LLM performance across modeling stages using expert-verified criteria. We validate the framework's reliability by comparing automatic scores with independent human expert judgments on problems from the China Postgraduate Mathematical Contest in Modeling, demonstrating substantially stronger alignment than existing evaluation schemes. Using this framework, we reveal a comprehension-execution gap in state-of-the-art LLMs: while they perform well in early stages such as problem identification and formulation, they exhibit persistent deficiencies in execution-oriented stages including model solving, code implementation, and result analysis. These gaps persist even with increased model scale. We further trace these failures to insufficient specification, missing verification, and lack of validation, with errors propagating across stages without correction. Our findings suggest that bridging this gap requires approaches beyond model scaling, offering insights for applying LLMs to complex real-world problem solving.
May 8, 2026

MathConstraint: Automated Generation of Verified Combinatorial Reasoning Instances for LLMs

We introduce MathConstraint, a hard, adaptive benchmark for evaluating the combinatorial reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We combine constraint satisfaction problems with rigorous solver-based verification and design an adaptive generator to create instances that remain challenging as the LLMs improve in their reasoning capabilities. Unlike existing benchmarks that quickly saturate on fixed datasets or use LLM-as-a-judge for checking solutions,MathConstraint uses parameterized problem types that enable scalable generation of arbitrarily difficult and automatically verifiable instances. We release MathConstraint-Easy (266266 instances), on which frontier models achieve between 72.6%72.6\% (gemini-3.1-flash-lite) and 87.6%87.6\% (gpt-5.5) accuracy, and MathConstraint (329329 instances) on which the same models drop to between 18.5%18.5\% (claude-4.6-sonnet) and 66.9%66.9\% (gpt-5.5) accuracy, demonstrating the resilience of our benchmark generator against rapid progress in LLM reasoning capabilities. We evaluate 12 frontier and open-weight models with and without access to a sandboxed Python environment that includes generic SAT/SMT solvers. Tool access roughly doubles frontier accuracy on MathConstraint (mean +28+28pp; up to +52+52pp for claude-4.6-sonnet). Further, halving the tool-call budget from 88 to 44 rounds erases up to 3737 points -- a sensitivity that most single-budget benchmarks miss. We release the generator, dataset, and evaluation harness as a robust environment for studying combinatorial reasoning and tool-use behavior under adversarially-tunable difficulty.