MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23281v2
• Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 11:27:40 GMT
• Title: MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions
• Authors: Mislav Balunović, Jasper Dekoninck, Ivo Petrov, Nikola Jovanović, Martin Vechev,
• Abstract summary: MathArena is a new benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>It is based on the following key insight: recurring math competitions provide a stream of high-quality, challenging problems.<n>MathArena is also the first benchmark for proof-writing capabilities.
• Score: 4.655668424508813
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid advancement of reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs) has led to notable improvements on mathematical benchmarks. However, many of the most commonly used evaluation datasets (e.g., AIME 2024) are widely available online, making it difficult to disentangle genuine reasoning from potential memorization. Furthermore, these benchmarks do not evaluate proof-writing capabilities, which are crucial for many mathematical tasks. To address this, we introduce MathArena, a new benchmark based on the following key insight: recurring math competitions provide a stream of high-quality, challenging problems that can be used for real-time evaluation of LLMs. By evaluating models as soon as new problems are released, we effectively eliminate the risk of contamination. Using this framework, we find strong signs of contamination in AIME 2024. Nonetheless, evaluations on harder competitions, such as CMIMC 2025, demonstrate impressive reasoning capabilities in top-performing models. MathArena is also the first benchmark for proof-writing capabilities. On IMO 2025, top models achieve slightly less than 40%, demonstrating both notable progress and significant room for improvement. So far, we have evaluated over $50$ models across seven competitions, totaling $162$ problems. As an evolving benchmark, MathArena will continue to track the progress of LLMs on newly released competitions, ensuring rigorous and up-to-date evaluation of mathematical reasoning.

Related papers

• From Abstract to Contextual: What LLMs Still Cannot Do in Mathematics [79.81905350372067]
  We study gap through contextual mathematical reasoning.<n>We introduce ContextMATH, a benchmark that repurposes AIME and MATH-500 problems into two contextual settings.<n>Open-source models decline by 13 and 34 points on SG and CS, while proprietary models drop by 13 and 20.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T14:56:04Z)
• AMO-Bench: Large Language Models Still Struggle in High School Math Competitions [22.16740349046417]
  AMO-Bench is an Advanced Mathematical reasoning benchmark with Olympiad level or even higher difficulty.<n>Each problem in AMO-Bench requires only a final answer rather than a proof, enabling automatic and robust grading for evaluation.<n> Experimental results across 26 LLMs on AMO-Bench show that even the best-performing model achieves only 52.4% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T17:52:02Z)
• IMProofBench: Benchmarking AI on Research-Level Mathematical Proof Generation [4.991157581428135]
  IMProofBench is a private benchmark consisting of 39 peer-reviewed problems developed by expert mathematicians.<n>Each problem requires a detailed proof and is paired with subproblems that have final answers.<n>Unlike prior benchmarks, the evaluation setup simulates a realistic research environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T10:50:37Z)
• RealMath: A Continuous Benchmark for Evaluating Language Models on Research-Level Mathematics [21.453837660747844]
  Existing benchmarks for evaluating mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) rely primarily on competition problems, formal proofs, or artificially challenging questions.<n>We introduce RealMath, a novel benchmark derived directly from research papers and mathematical forums that assesses LLMs' abilities on authentic mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T23:32:46Z)
• Proof or Bluff? Evaluating LLMs on 2025 USA Math Olympiad [0.8030359871216614]
  We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning models on six problems from the 2025 USAMO.<n>Only Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves a non-trivial score of 25%.<n>Our results suggest that current LLMs are inadequate for rigorous mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T19:21:05Z)
• Challenging the Boundaries of Reasoning: An Olympiad-Level Math Benchmark for Large Language Models [86.45058529521258]
  OlymMATH is a novel Olympiad-level mathematical benchmark designed to rigorously test the complex reasoning capabilities of LLMs.<n>OlymMATH features 200 meticulously curated problems, each manually verified and available in parallel English and Chinese versions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T11:20:17Z)
• PromptCoT: Synthesizing Olympiad-level Problems for Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models [59.920971312822736]
  We introduce PromptCoT, a novel approach for automatically generating high-quality Olympiad-level math problems.<n>The proposed method synthesizes complex problems based on mathematical concepts and the rationale behind problem construction.<n>Our method is evaluated on standard benchmarks including GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME2024, where it consistently outperforms existing problem generation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T06:32:30Z)
• UTMath: Math Evaluation with Unit Test via Reasoning-to-Coding Thoughts [7.856746367263317]
  This paper introduces the UTMath Benchmark, a robust evaluation framework designed to assess Large Language Models.<n>It comprises 1,053 cutting-edge problems spanning nine mathematical domains, with an average of 68 test cases per problem.<n>The best-performing model, o1-mini, solving only 32.57% of the problems, followed by o1-preview at 27.16%, and GPT-4o at 26.93%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T18:59:02Z)
• Omni-MATH: A Universal Olympiad Level Mathematic Benchmark For Large Language Models [63.31878920079154]
  We propose a benchmark specifically designed to assess large language models' mathematical reasoning at the Olympiad level.<n>Unlike existing Olympiad-related benchmarks, our dataset focuses exclusively on mathematics and comprises a vast collection of 4428 competition-level problems with rigorous human annotation.<n>Our experimental results show that even the most advanced models, OpenAI o1-mini and OpenAI o1-preview, struggle with highly challenging Olympiad-level problems, with 60.54% and 52.55% accuracy, highlighting significant challenges in Olympiad-level mathematical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T14:39:33Z)
• MathHay: An Automated Benchmark for Long-Context Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs [61.74749961334557]
  MathHay is an automated benchmark designed to assess the long-context mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We conduct extensive experiments on MathHay to assess the long-context mathematical reasoning abilities of eight top-performing models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:07Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solvers [68.77382332826167]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks. One essential and frequently occurring evidence is that when the math questions are slightly changed, LLMs can behave incorrectly. This motivates us to evaluate the robustness of LLMs' math reasoning capability by testing a wide range of question variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:26:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.