LLM Mathematical Reasoning

We present ZAYA1-8B, a reasoning-focused mixture-of-experts (MoE) model with 700M active and 8B total parameters, built on Zyphra's MoE++ architecture. ZAYA1-8B's core pretraining, midtraining, and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) were performed on a full-stack AMD compute, networking, and software platform. With under 1B active parameters, ZAYA1-8B matches or exceeds DeepSeek-R1-0528 on several challenging mathematics and coding benchmarks, and remains competitive with substantially larger open-weight reasoning models. ZAYA1-8B was trained from scratch for reasoning, with reasoning data included from pretraining onward using an answer-preserving trimming scheme. Post-training uses a four-stage RL cascade: reasoning warmup on math and puzzles; a 400-task RLVE-Gym curriculum; math and code RL with test-time compute traces and synthetic code environments built from competitive-programming references; and behavioral RL for chat and instruction following. We also introduce Markovian RSA, a test-time compute method that recursively aggregates parallel reasoning traces while carrying forward only bounded-length reasoning tails between rounds. In TTC evaluation, Markovian RSA raises ZAYA1-8B to 91.9% on AIME'25 and 89.6% on HMMT'25 while carrying forward only a 4K-token tail, narrowing the gap to much larger reasoning models including Gemini-2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, and GPT-5-High.

Automating formal proofs of combinatorial identities is challenging for LLM-based provers, as long-horizon proof planning is required and unconstrained search quickly explodes. Symbolic methods such as the Wilf-Zeilberger (WZ) method can achieve a mechanized proof of combinatorial identities by constructing special auxiliary functions and demonstrating that they satisfy specific recurrence relations. We propose WZ-LLM, a neuro-symbolic framework that turns WZ proof plans into executable proof sketches in Lean 4 and uses an LLM-based prover to discharge the resulting machine-checkable subgoals. We also train a dedicated WZ-Prover via a Lean-kernel-verified bootstrapping loop with expert-verified iteration, followed by DAPO-based refinement. Experiments show that WZ-LLM achieves a 34% proof success rate on LCI-Test (100 classic combinatorial identities), outperforming strong baselines such as DeepSeek-V3 and Goedel-Prover-V2, and delivering consistent gains on CombiBench and PutnamBench-Comb. These results indicate that our framework provides two complementary strengths: improved direct proving for identities beyond the scope of WZ, and substantially higher end-to-end success when WZ sketches guide a specialized prover.

We introduce a benchmark suite for evaluating structural mathematical reasoning in language models, built on subgroup-construction problems in SL(3, Z) with cryptographic-style verifier-prover asymmetry. Each instance presents a finitely generated subgroup as a list of integer matrices and asks for an arithmetic invariant -- index, surjection-at-prime, or membership -- that the construction-time information (N, K) pins down in O(1) closed form, but that the solver, lacking that information, must derive by either Aschbacher-classification analysis or by a membership query in SL(3, Z) of unknown decidability. The benchmark therefore distinguishes models with internalized algebraic priors (Aschbacher classes, McLaughlin's theorem, Property (T), the congruence subgroup property) from models that rely on general-purpose computation. We report empirical results across five representative reasoning traces from two state-of-the-art models. The headline result: on the index variant, one model spent 152 minutes of reasoning, explicitly identified the kernel-side membership question as the bottleneck, attempted constructive verification, and abstained with "DON'T KNOW" rather than commit to its computed cokernel candidate -- demonstrating calibrated meta-cognition on the open-decidability boundary that the benchmark was designed to probe. We argue that the benchmark exposes a four-way classification of model behavior (commit-correct, commit-wrong, abstain-correct, abstain-wrong) that standard answer-key scoring conflates.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, but is widely believed to offer limited benefit for reasoning-intensive problems such as math and code generation. We challenge this assumption by showing that the limitation lies not in RAG itself, but in the choice of corpus. Instead of retrieving documents, we propose retrieving thinking traces, i.e., intermediate thinking trajectories generated during problem solving attempts. We show that thinking traces are already a strong retrieval source, and further introduce T3, an offline method that transforms them into structured, retrieval-friendly representations, to improve usability. Using these traces as a corpus, a simple retrieve-then-generate pipeline consistently improves reasoning performance across strong models and benchmarks such as AIME 2025--2026, LiveCodeBench, and GPQA-Diamond, outperforming both non-RAG baselines and retrieval over standard web corpora. For instance, on AIME 2025-2026, RAG with traces generated by Gemini-2-thinking achieves relative gains of +56.3%, +8.6%, and +7.6% for Gemini-2.5-Flash, GPT-OSS-120B, and GPT-5, respectively, even though these are more recent models. Overall, our results suggest that thinking traces are an effective retrieval corpus for reasoning tasks, and transforming them into structured, compact, or diagnostic representations unlocks even stronger gains. Code available at https://github.com/Narabzad/t3.

Does structure in representations imply structure in computation? We study how Llama-3.1-8B reasons over cyclic concepts (e.g., "what month is six months after August?"). Even though Llama-3.1-8B's representations for these concepts are circularly structured, we find that instead of directly computing modular addition in the period of the cyclic concept (e.g., 12 for months), the model re-uses a generic addition mechanism across tasks that operates independently of concept-specific geometry. First, it computes the sum of its two inputs using base-10 addition (six + August=14). Then, it maps this sum back to cyclic concept space (14->February). We show that Llama-3.1-8B uses task-agnostic Fourier features to compute these sums--in fact, these features have periods that respect standard base-10 addition, e.g., 2, 5, and 10, rather than the cyclic concept period (e.g., 12 for months). Furthermore, we identify a sparse set of 28 MLP neurons re-used across all tasks (approximately 0.2% of the MLP at layer 18) that can be partitioned into disjoint clusters, each computing the sum for a Fourier feature with a different period. Our work highlights how an interplay between causal abstraction and feature geometry can deepen our mechanistic understanding of LMs.

While Large Language Models have achieved notable success on formal mathematics benchmarks such as MiniF2F, it remains unclear whether these results stem from genuine logical reasoning or semantic pattern matching against pre-training data. This paper identifies Architectural Reasoning: the ability to synthesize formal proofs using exclusively local axioms and definitions within an alien math domain, as the necessary ability for future automated theorem discovery AI. We use the Obfuscated Natural Number Game, a benchmark to evaluate Architectural Reasoning. By renaming identifiers in the Natural Number Game in Lean 4, we created a zero-knowledge, closed environment. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, finding a universal latency tax where obfuscation increases inference time. The results also reveal a divergence in robustness: while general models (Claude-Sonnet-4.5, GPT-4o) suffer performance degradation, reasoning models (DeepSeek-R1, GPT-5, DeepSeek-Prover-V2) maintain the same accuracy despite the absence of semantic cues. These findings provide a quantitative metric for assessing the true capacity for mathematical reasoning.

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.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on mathematical reasoning tasks but remain unreliable on challenging instances. Existing test-time scaling methods, such as repeated sampling, self-correction, and tree search, improve performance at the cost of increased computation, yet often exhibit diminishing returns on hard problems. We observe that output disagreement is strongly correlated with instance difficulty and prediction correctness, providing a useful signal for guiding instance-level strategy selection at test time. Based on this insight, we propose a training-free framework that formulates test-time scaling as an instance-level routing problem, rather than allocating more computation within a single strategy, dynamically selecting among different scaling strategies based on output disagreement. The framework applies lightweight resolution for consistent cases, majority voting for moderate disagreement, and rewriting-based reformulation for highly ambiguous instances. Experiments on seven mathematical benchmarks and three models show that our method improves accuracy by 3% - 7% while reducing sampling cost compared to existing approaches.

We present QED, an open-source multi-agent system that turns human-provided research questions into complete mathematical proofs without further human guidance. Its pipeline is designed to overcome common failures of single-query proof generation by separating planning, proving, and verification: a decomposition agent structures the proof search, prover agents generate candidate arguments, and verifier agents check correctness. In collaboration with domain experts, we evaluated QED on 18 research-level projects of varying difficulty. QED produced five original works across algebraic geometry, fluid PDEs, probability, and inverse problems. Expert assessments regard these works as solid specialized research contributions, with three comparable in difficulty and scope to work commonly published in established specialist mathematics venues. QED is released at https://github.com/proofQED/QED.

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.

Reasoning LLMs often spend substantial tokens on long intermediate reasoning traces (e.g., chain-of-thought) when solving new problems. We propose to summarize and store reusable reasoning skills distilled from extensive deliberation and trial-and-error exploration, and to retrieve these skills at inference time to guide future reasoning. Unlike the prevailing \emph{reasoning from scratch} paradigm, our approach first recalls relevant skills for each query, helping the model avoid redundant detours and focus on effective solution paths. We evaluate our method on coding and mathematical reasoning tasks, and find that it significantly reduces reasoning tokens while improving overall performance. The resulting lower per-request cost indicates strong practical and economic potential for real-world deployment.

Reasoning-capable large language models solve hard problems by emitting long chains of thought, paying heavily in latency, GPU time, and energy. Casual inspection of their traces reveals extensive reformulation, verification, and circular self-reflection, yet how much of this deliberation is actually necessary has never been measured at scale or explained from first principles. This paper closes both gaps. We formalise reasoning redundancy directly in terms of the reasoning model itself: the redundancy of a correct trace is the largest fraction of its trailing segmented steps that can be truncated while $π$, forced to terminate thinking and emit a final answer, still produces the correct answer. A large-scale quantification across four frontier reasoning models and two mathematical benchmarks shows that step-level redundancy is consistently high -- between 61% and 93% across the 8 (model, benchmark) conditions we study, with the median critical prefix equal to a single segmented step in six of the eight conditions -- that the finding is robust to the choice of judge family, and that although $ρ$ decreases with problem difficulty on MATH-500, all four models remain substantially redundant ($ρ\in [46\%, 85\%]$) even on the hardest Level-5 problems. We then prove that this redundancy is a structural consequence of length-agnostic outcome rewards, not a model-specific artefact: under any such reward, no finite expected stopping time is optimal. The result holds regardless of RL algorithm, base model, data distribution, or whether the policy is obtained via RL or distillation; over-thinking is therefore not a bug to be patched in individual models but a structural property of how current reasoning models are trained. Code: https://github.com/zhiyuanZhai20/how-much-thinking-is-enough

We introduce Options LLM (OLLM), a simple, general method that replaces the single next-token prediction of standard LLMs with a \textit{set of learned options} for the next token, indexed by a discrete latent variable. Instead of relying on temperature or sampling heuristics to induce diversity, OLLM models variation explicitly: a small latent space parametrizes multiple plausible next-token options which can be selected or searched by a downstream policy. Architecturally, OLLM is a lightweight "plug-in" that inserts two layers: an encoder and a decoder, before the output head, allowing almost any pretrained LLM to be converted with minimal additional parameters. We apply OLLM to a 1.7B-parameter backbone (only $1.56\%$ of parameters trainable) trained on OpenMathReasoning and evaluated on OmniMath. The SOTA LoRA-adapted baselines peak at $51\%$ final answer correctness, while OLLM's option set allows up to $\sim 70\%$ under optimal latent selection. We then train a compact policy in the latent space that emits latents to control generation. Operating in a low-dimensional option space makes reward optimization far more sample-efficient and substantially reduces common misalignments (e.g., language switching or degenerate reasoning), as the policy is constrained to options learned during SFT. Crucially, this alignment arises from model structure rather than additional KL or handcrafted alignment losses. Our results demonstrate that optionized next-token modeling enhances controllability, robustness, and efficiency in math reasoning, and highlight latent-space policy learning as a promising direction for reinforcement learning in LLMs.

Statement autoformalization acts as a critical bridge between human mathematics and formal mathematics by translating natural language problems into formal language. While prior works have focused on data synthesis and diverse training paradigms to optimize end-to-end Large Language Models (LLMs), they typically treat formal code as flat sequences, neglecting the hierarchical logic inherent in mathematical statements. In this work, we introduce Decompose, Structure, and Repair (DSR), a neuro-symbolic framework that restructures autoformalization into a modular pipeline. DSR decomposes statements into logical components and maps them to structured operator trees, leveraging this topological blueprint to precisely localize and repair errors via sub-tree refinement. Furthermore, we introduce PRIME, a benchmark of 156 undergraduate and graduate-level theorems selected from canonical textbooks and expertly annotated in Lean 4. Experimental results demonstrate that DSR establishes a new state-of-the-art, consistently outperforming baselines under equivalent computational budgets. The datasets, model, and code are available at https://github.com/XiaoyangLiu-sjtu/DSR.

We present a systematic empirical study of prompt engineering for formal mathematical reasoning in the context of the SAIR Equational Theories Stage 1 competition. The task requires deciding whether one equational law implies another over all magmas -- a problem that is undecidable in general but decidable for FALSE via finite model search. Over five weeks, we designed, tested, and analyzed more than 40 prompt variants, ranging from 0 to 4,878 bytes, across four evaluation splits and three language models (gpt-oss-120b, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 4 31B). Our central finding is a single-prompt ceiling: despite substantial engineering effort, balanced hard accuracy plateaus in an empirical saturation region of approximately 60--79% for gpt-oss-120b, compared to a 59.75% no-cheatsheet baseline. We identify three mechanisms underlying this ceiling: (1) the mathematical undecidability of the TRUE case limits what any finite prompt can encode; (2) complex rule systems decrease performance on weaker models (Llama 3.3 70B collapses to 0% TRUE recall with prompts exceeding 2KB); and (3) prompt ordering effects interact with model attention in fragile, non-monotonic ways. Our best submission (AN45c, 2,252 bytes) achieves 79.25% accuracy on hard3 (n=400; 95% CI: [75.0%, 82.9%]), with TRUE recall of 95.9% and FALSE recall of 63.4%, representing a +19.5 percentage-point improvement over the no-cheatsheet baseline (59.75%). We release all prompt variants, evaluation scripts, and results at https://github.com/israelcazares/sair-prompt-engineering

Mathematical problem solving remains a challenging test of reasoning for large language and multimodal models, yet existing benchmarks are limited in size, language coverage, and task diversity. We introduce MathNet, a high-quality, large-scale, multimodal, and multilingual dataset of Olympiad-level math problems together with a benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning in generative models and mathematical retrieval in embedding-based systems. MathNet spans 47 countries, 17 languages, and two decades of competitions, comprising 30,676 expert-authored problems with solutions across diverse domains. In addition to the core dataset, we construct a retrieval benchmark consisting of mathematically equivalent and structurally similar problem pairs curated by human experts. MathNet supports three tasks: (i) Problem Solving, (ii) Math-Aware Retrieval, and (iii) Retrieval-Augmented Problem Solving. Experimental results show that even state-of-the-art reasoning models (78.4% for Gemini-3.1-Pro and 69.3% for GPT-5) remain challenged, while embedding models struggle to retrieve equivalent problems. We further show that retrieval-augmented generation performance is highly sensitive to retrieval quality; for example, DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale achieves gains of up to 12%, obtaining the highest scores on the benchmark. MathNet provides the largest high-quality Olympiad dataset together with the first benchmark for evaluating mathematical problem retrieval, and we publicly release both the dataset and benchmark at https://mathnet.mit.edu.

Deploying LLMs as reasoning assistants in safety-critical aerospace engineering requires stricter evaluation criteria than general scientific benchmarks. In hypersonic thermal protection system (TPS) design, inaccurate stagnation-point heat flux or boundary-layer calculations may cause catastrophic design margin violations. Models with numerically reasonable but physically invalid answers are more dangerous than those declining to respond. Current scientific benchmarks only test abstract math and basic physics, evaluate final answers solely, ignore engineering reasoning processes, and cannot detect such critical failures. We propose TPS-CalcBench, the first diagnostic benchmark for closed-form analytical calculations in hypersonic aerodynamics and high-temperature gas dynamics that experienced TPS engineers conduct without simulations. Our contributions include domain-oriented task taxonomy with 4 difficulty levels and 8 categories from Anderson's textbook, dual-track evaluation measuring result accuracy and reasoning quality via an 8-dimension rubric and calibrated judge with human audit to identify right answer wrong reasoning issues, human-AI data pipeline producing 420 high-confidence core items and 810 noise-controlled pre-gating items from 4560 raw data, noise-sensitivity analysis measuring data quality impacts on model ranking, and three diagnostic intervention methods: DFA-TPS fine-tuning, RAG-EQ retrieval grounding and PA-CoT process-aware prompting. Tests on 13 models from 7 groups show wide performance differences (KPI 12.6-87.9), hidden formula selection defects, data-driven rank changes and effective intervention improvements, establishing a complete diagnose-evaluate-intervene framework for safety-critical engineering LLM deployment assessment.

Project Yanasse presents a method for discovering new proofs of theorems in one area of mathematics by transferring proof strategy patterns (e.g., Lean 4 tactic invocation patterns) from a structurally distant area. The system extracts tactic usage distributions across 27 top-level areas of Mathlib (217,133 proof states), computes z-scores to identify tactics that are heavily used in a source area but rare or absent in a target area, matches source and target proof states via GPU-accelerated NP-hard analogy (running on a MacBook Air via Apple's MPS backend), and then asks an AI reasoning agent to semantically adapt--not symbol-substitute--the source tactics invocation pattern to the target theorem. In this first part of the study, the method is applied to the pair Probability -> Representation Theory, producing 4 Lean-verified new proofs out of 10 attempts (40%). The proofs compile with zero sorry declarations. The key finding is that tactic schemas decompose into a head (domain-gated, rarely transfers) and a modifier (domain-general, often transfers): filter upwards's head fails in representation theory (no Filter structure), but its [LIST] with ω modifier transfers cleanly as ext1 + simp [LIST] + rfl. Crucially, the underlying matching engine--deep vision lib.py--is entirely domain independent: the same optimization code for an NP-hard matching that matches chess positions by analogy matches Lean proof states by analogy, without knowing which domain it is processing. Only a relation extractor is domain-specific.

Although most of the automated theorem-proving approaches depend on formal proof systems, informal theorem proving can align better with large language models' (LLMs) strength in natural language processing. In this work, we identify a primary bottleneck in informal theorem proving as a lack of insight, namely the difficulty of recognizing the core techniques required to solve complex problems. To address this, we propose $\texttt{DeepInsight}$, a unified training framework designed to cultivate this essential reasoning skill and enable LLMs to perform insightful reasoning. Our framework consists of three components: (1) $\texttt{DeepInsightTheorem}$, a hierarchical dataset that structures informal proofs by explicitly extracting core techniques and proof sketches alongside the final proof; (2) a Progressive Multi-Stage SFT strategy that mimics the human learning process, teaching the model proof writing, planning, and insight identification; and (3) $\texttt{InsightPO}$, a policy optimization method that assigns structured rewards over this insight hierarchy. Our experiments on challenging mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that this insight-aware generation strategy significantly outperforms baselines. These results demonstrate that teaching models to identify and apply core techniques can substantially improve their mathematical reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, yet their internal mechanisms for handling reasoning-intensive tasks remain underexplored. To advance the understanding of model-internal processing mechanisms, we present an investigation of how LLMs perform arithmetic operations by examining internal mechanisms during task execution. Using early decoding, we trace how next-token predictions are constructed across layers. Our experiments reveal that while the models recognize arithmetic tasks early, correct result generation occurs only in the final layers. Notably, models proficient in arithmetic exhibit a clear division of labor between attention and MLP modules, where attention propagates input information and MLP modules aggregate it. This division is absent in less proficient models. Furthermore, successful models appear to process more challenging arithmetic tasks functionally, suggesting reasoning capabilities beyond factual recall.

Reinforcement learning has become a powerful approach for enhancing large language model reasoning, but faces a fundamental dilemma: training on easy problems can cause overfitting and pass@k degradation, while training on hard problems often results in sparse rewards. Recent question augmentation methods address this by prepending partial solutions as hints. However, uniform hint provision may introduce redundant information while missing critical reasoning bottlenecks, and excessive hints can reduce reasoning diversity, causing pass@k degradation. We propose \textbf{PieceHint}, a hint injection framework that strategically identifies and provides critical reasoning steps during training. By scoring the importance of different reasoning steps, selectively allocating hints based on problem difficulty, and progressively withdrawing scaffolding, PieceHint enables models to transition from guided learning to independent reasoning. Experiments on six mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that our 1.5B model achieves comparable average performance to 32B baselines while preserving pass@k diversity across all $k$ values.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong mathematical reasoning when trained on high-quality Chain-of-Thought (CoT) that articulates intermediate steps, yet costly CoT curation hinders further progress. While existing remedies such as distillation from stronger LLMs and self-synthesis based on test-time search alleviate this issue, they often suffer from diminishing returns or high computing overhead.In this work, we propose CoTEvol, a genetic evolutionary framework that casts CoT generation as a population-based search over reasoning trajectories.Candidate trajectories are iteratively evolved through reflective global crossover at the trajectory level and local mutation guided by uncertainty at the step level, enabling holistic recombination and fine-grained refinement. Lightweight, task-aware fitness functions are designed to guide the evolutionary process toward accurate and diverse reasoning. Empirically, CoTEvol improves correct-CoT synthesis success by over 30% and enhances structural diversity, with markedly improved efficiency. LLMs trained on these evolutionary CoT data achieve an average gain of 6.6% across eight math benchmarks, outperforming previous distillation and self-synthesis approaches. These results underscore the promise of evolutionary CoT synthesis as a scalable and effective method for mathematical reasoning tasks.

Recent AI systems have achieved gold-medal-level performance on the International Mathematical Olympiad, demonstrating remarkable proficiency at competition-style problem solving. However, competition mathematics represents only a narrow slice of mathematical reasoning: problems are drawn from limited domains, require minimal advanced machinery, and can often reward insightful tricks over deep theoretical knowledge. We introduce Riemann-Bench, a private benchmark of expert-curated problems designed to evaluate AI systems on research-level mathematics that goes far beyond the olympiad frontier. Problems are authored by Ivy League mathematics professors, graduate students, and PhD-holding IMO medalists, and routinely took their authors weeks to solve independently. Each problem undergoes double-blind verification by two independent domain experts who must solve the problem from scratch, and yields a unique, closed-form solution assessed by programmatic verifiers. We evaluate frontier models as unconstrained research agents, with full access to coding tools, search, and open-ended reasoning, using an unbiased statistical estimator computed over 100 independent runs per problem. Our results reveal that all frontier models currently score below 10%, exposing a substantial gap between olympiad-level problem solving and genuine research-level mathematical reasoning. By keeping the benchmark fully private, we ensure that measured performance reflects authentic mathematical capability rather than memorization of training data.

Mathematical reasoning is a hallmark of human intelligence, and whether large language models (LLMs) can meaningfully perform it remains a central question in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. As LLMs are increasingly integrated into scientific workflows, rigorous evaluation of their mathematical capabilities becomes a practical necessity. Existing benchmarks are limited by synthetic settings and data contamination. We present LiveMathematicianBench, a dynamic multiple-choice benchmark for research-level mathematical reasoning built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. By grounding evaluation in newly published theorems, it provides a realistic testbed beyond memorized patterns. The benchmark introduces a thirteen-category logical taxonomy of theorem types (e.g., implication, equivalence, existence, uniqueness), enabling fine-grained evaluation across reasoning forms. It employs a proof-sketch-guided distractor pipeline that uses high-level proof strategies to construct plausible but invalid answer choices reflecting misleading proof directions, increasing sensitivity to genuine understanding over surface-level matching. We also introduce a substitution-resistant mechanism to distinguish answer recognition from substantive reasoning. Evaluation shows the benchmark is far from saturated: Gemini-3.1-pro-preview, the best model, achieves only 43.5%. Under substitution-resistant evaluation, accuracy drops sharply: GPT-5.4 scores highest at 30.6%, while Gemini-3.1-pro-preview falls to 17.6%, below the 20% random baseline. A dual-mode protocol reveals that proof-sketch access yields consistent accuracy gains, suggesting models can leverage high-level proof strategies for reasoning. Overall, LiveMathematicianBench offers a scalable, contamination-resistant testbed for studying research-level mathematical reasoning in LLMs.

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.

Language models exhibit fundamental limitations -- hallucination, brittleness, and lack of formal grounding -- that are particularly problematic in high-stakes specialist fields requiring verifiable reasoning. I investigate whether formal domain ontologies can enhance language model reliability through retrieval-augmented generation. Using mathematics as proof of concept, I implement a neuro-symbolic pipeline leveraging the OpenMath ontology with hybrid retrieval and cross-encoder reranking to inject relevant definitions into model prompts. Evaluation on the MATH benchmark with three open-source models reveals that ontology-guided context improves performance when retrieval quality is high, but irrelevant context actively degrades it -- highlighting both the promise and challenges of neuro-symbolic approaches.

Large language models have made substantial progress in mathematical reasoning. However, benchmark development for multilingual evaluation has lagged behind English in both difficulty and recency. Recently, GSM-Symbolic showed a strong evidence of high variance when models are evaluated on different instantiations of the same question; however, the evaluation was conducted only in English. In this paper, we introduce MGSM-Pro, an extension of MGSM dataset with GSM-Symbolic approach. Our dataset provides five instantiations per MGSM question by varying names, digits and irrelevant context. Evaluations across nine languages reveal that many low-resource languages suffer large performance drops when tested on digit instantiations different from those in the original test set. We further find that models robustness in HRL setting do not necessarily translate to LRL. Moreover, proprietary models, such as Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-4.1 are less robust to digit, whereas Gemini 3.0 Pro is more robust. Among open models, GPT-OSS 120B and DeepSeek v3 show stronger robustness. Based on these findings, we recommend evaluating each problem using at least five digit-varying instantiations to obtain a more robust and realistic assessment of math reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive proficiency in basic arithmetic, rivaling human-level performance on standard numerical tasks. However, little attention has been given to how these models perform when numerical expressions deviate from the prevailing conventions present in their training corpora. In this work, we investigate numerical reasoning across a wide range of numeral scripts and formats. We show that LLM accuracy drops substantially when numerical inputs are rendered in underrepresented scripts or formats, despite the underlying mathematical reasoning being identical. We further demonstrate that targeted prompting strategies, such as few-shot prompting and explicit numeral mapping, can greatly narrow this gap. Our findings highlight an overlooked challenge in multilingual numerical reasoning and provide actionable insights for working with LLMs to reliably interpret, manipulate, and generate numbers across diverse numeral scripts and formatting styles.

LLMs excel at reasoning, but validating their steps remains challenging. Formal verification offers a solution through mechanically checkable proofs. Interactive theorem provers (ITPs) dominate mathematical reasoning but require detailed low-level proof steps, while auto-active verifiers offer automation but focus on software verification. Recent work has begun bridging this divide by evaluating LLMs for software verification in ITPs, but the complementary direction, LLMs for mathematical theorem proving in auto-active verifiers, remains unexplored. We present MINIF2F-DAFNY, the first translation of the widely-used mathematical benchmark miniF2F to an auto-active verifier: Dafny. We find that Dafny's automation alone solves 39-44% of problems with empty proofs, whereas many require substantial proof guidance in ITPs. We evaluate 8 off-the-shelf LLMs on proof generation, with the best model (Claude Opus 4.6) achieving 62.7% cumulative pass@4 on the full test set, improving over the 38.9% empty-proof baseline by 23.8 percentage points. These results show that auto-active verification offers a complementary empirical setting for AI-assisted mathematical reasoning, where LLMs provide high-level guidance while SMT automation handles low-level details. Our benchmark and evaluation infrastructure are publicly available on https://github.com/dafny-lang/miniF2F.

Training process reward models (PRMs) requires step-level correctness labels, obtained either through expensive human annotation or by relying on ground-truth answers, limiting the ability to scale process-level supervision. We propose ScalePRM, which scales verification compute as an alternative: given a problem and a candidate solution, we generate multiple independent verifications of each reasoning step and aggregate their judgments to produce synthetic step-level labels without ground truth. We explore two representative inference-time scaling strategies, parallel scaling through self-consistency and sequential scaling through meta-critique, and train generative PRMs on the resulting synthetic data. On ProcessBench, a benchmark for identifying erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning, PRMs trained on step-level self-consistency data achieve 67.5 F1, surpassing reference-guided training with ground-truth access (66.4 F1) and GPT-4o as a critic (61.9 F1). When deployed as reward signals in RL training with Qwen2.5-Math-7B, our best PRM achieves 47.4% average accuracy across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming ground-truth-based RLVR (43.9%). We also identify and address reward exploitation patterns unique to generative PRM-based RL. Our results demonstrate that scaling verification compute is a viable alternative to ground-truth supervision for training process reward models.