arXiv:2603. 05290v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising performance, yet their ability to reason remains poorly understood.
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 AI.
arXiv:2605. 19723v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Mathematical reasoning is essential for problem-solving in education, science, and industry, serving as a crucial benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence systems.
arXiv:2607. 20520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on mathematical problem solving, yet prior work often treats representationally equivalent formulations as interchangeable and conflates reasoning errors with interface failures.
NL2AGBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models can translate English geometry problems into the formal language required by AlphaGeometry’s theorem‑proving engine. The study tests ten state‑of‑the‑art LLMs, comparing executable translation accuracy, syntactic correctness, and error types, and finds a large gap between closed‑source and open‑source models. The authors also propose an error taxonomy and test mitigation strategies such as few‑shot prompting, fine‑tuning, and human‑guided hinting, which improve performance across model families.
arXiv:2609.38409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable r...
LiveMathematicianBench is a dynamic multiple‑choice benchmark for research‑level mathematical reasoning, built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. It introduces a thirteen‑category logical taxonomy of theorem types and uses a proof‑sketch‑guided distractor pipeline to create plausible but invalid answer choices, enhancing sensitivity to genuine reasoning. Evaluation shows current large language models perform poorly, with the best model scoring 43.5% overall and only 17.6% under substitution‑resistant conditions, indicating the benchmark’s difficulty and realism.
arXiv:2607. 07391v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mathematical reasoning benchmarks typically provide all facts needed to solve each problem, while interactive benchmarks often mix reasoning with tools, retrieval, and long-horizon dialogue.