arXiv Machine LearningBy Santiago Gonzalez, Alireza Amiri Bavandpour, Peter Ye, Edward Zhang, Ruslans Aleksejevs, Todor Anti\'c, Polina Baron, Sujeet Bhalerao, Shubhrajit Bhattacharya, Zachary Burton, John Byrne, Hyungjun Choi, Nujhat Ahmed Disha, Koppany Istv\'an Encz, Yuchen Fang, Robert Joseph George, Ebrahim Ghorbani, Alan Goldfarb, Jing Guo, Meghal Gupta, Stefano Huber, Annika Kanckos, Minjung Kang, Hyun Jong Kim, Dino Lorenzini, Levi Lorenzo, Tianyi Mao, Giovanni Marzenta, Ariane M. Masuda, Lukas Mauth, Ana Mickovic, Andres Miniguano-Trujillo, Antoine Moulin, Wenqi Ni, Tomos Parry, Kevin Ren, Hossein Roodbarani, Mathieu Rundstr\"om, Manjil Saikia, Detchat Samart, Rebecca Steiner, Connor Stewart, Dhara Thakkar, Jeffrey Tse, Vasiliki Velona, Yunhai Xiang, Sibel Yal\c{c}{\i}n, Jun Yan, Ji Zeng, Arman Cohan, Quanquan C. Liu
QEDBENCH: Quantifying the Alignment Gap in Automated Evaluation of University-Level Mathematical Proofs
arXiv:2602. 20629v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description
— not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
AdvancedMathBench is a new benchmark suite that evaluates large language models on advanced mathematical proof generation and verification. It includes ProverBench, with 245 problems from undergraduate to doctoral qualifying‑exam levels, and VerifierBench, which tests models’ ability to judge proof validity using 888 expert‑annotated trajectories. The suite features an automatic verification pipeline trained on expert data, and results show that even state‑of‑the‑art models perform poorly, highlighting a gap between generation and verification skills.
By Lingkai Kong, Zijian Wu, Yuzhe Gu, Haiteng Zhao, Zhouqi Hua, Wenyong Huang, Shuang Sun, Zhicheng Xiong, Xiaotian Zhang, Shuya Zhao, Yan Wang, Disheng Xu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed.
arXiv:2606. 03144v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as self-study assistants in technical disciplines, yet their reliability as mathematical reasoning assistants remains poorly understood.
By Noujoud Nader, Ibrahem Aljabea, Patrick Diehl, Deepti Gupta
arXiv:2606. 10254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Yiteng Mao, Kenan Xu, Yijia Lyu, Wenhao Li, Jianlong Chen, Xiangfeng Wang
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
By Tao Liu, Ye Lu, Ruohua Zhang, Siyu Song, Wentao Liu, Aimin Zhou, Hao Hao
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...