Winning Gold at IMO 2025 with a Model-Agnostic Verification-and-Refinement Pipeline

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15855v4
• Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 17:53:21 GMT
• Title: Winning Gold at IMO 2025 with a Model-Agnostic Verification-and-Refinement Pipeline
• Authors: Yichen Huang, Lin F. Yang,
• Abstract summary: Large language models often struggle with Olympiad-level problems.<n>We construct a model-agnostic, verification-and-refinement pipeline.<n>We demonstrate its effectiveness on the recent IMO 2025.
• Score: 10.177917426690703
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) is widely regarded as the world championship of high-school mathematics. IMO problems are renowned for their difficulty and novelty, demanding deep insight, creativity, and rigor. Although large language models perform well on many mathematical benchmarks, they often struggle with Olympiad-level problems. Using carefully designed prompts, we construct a model-agnostic, verification-and-refinement pipeline. We demonstrate its effectiveness on the recent IMO 2025, avoiding data contamination for models released before the competition. Equipped with any of the three leading models -- Gemini 2.5 Pro, Grok-4, or GPT-5 -- our pipeline correctly solved 5 out of the 6 problems ($\approx$85.7% accuracy). This is in sharp contrast to their baseline accuracies: 31.6% (Gemini 2.5 Pro), 21.4% (Grok-4), and 38.1% (GPT-5), obtained by selecting the best of 32 candidate solutions. The substantial improvement underscores that the path to advanced AI reasoning requires not only developing more powerful base models but also designing effective methodologies to harness their full potential for complex tasks.

Related papers

• mmJEE-Eval: A Bilingual Multimodal Benchmark for Evaluating Scientific Reasoning in Vision-Language Models [2.0467354053171243]
  We introduce textbfmmJEE-Eval, a multimodal bilingual (English and Hindi) benchmark comprising 1,460 questions from India's Chemistry Advanced examination ( 2019-2025)<n>Our evaluation of 17 state-of-the-art models reveals that while frontier VLMs (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro/Flash) achieve 77-84% accuracy on held-out 2025 questions, open-source models plateau at 37-45% despite scaling to 400B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T13:52:37Z)
• Towards Robust Mathematical Reasoning [41.319782208621156]
  We present IMO-Bench, a suite of advanced reasoning benchmarks vetted by a panel of top specialists.<n> IMO-AnswerBench first tests models on 400 diverse Olympiad problems with verifiable short answers.<n> IMO-Proof Bench is the next-level evaluation for proof-writing capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T18:53:02Z)
• BeyondBench: Benchmark-Free Evaluation of Reasoning in Language Models [13.380359214677176]
  We introduce BeyondBench, an evaluation framework that avoids contamination from internet-scale training data.<n>Our framework covers 44 algorithmic tasks with a total of 117 variations, grouped into three difficulty levels.<n>We evaluate 101 language models, including 85 open-source and 16 closed-source models, spanning sizes from 0.5B to 141B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:49:01Z)
• WirelessMathLM: Teaching Mathematical Reasoning for LLMs in Wireless Communications with Reinforcement Learning [51.13280433665446]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at general mathematical reasoning but fail catastrophically on specialized technical mathematics.<n>In wireless communications, where problems require precise manipulation of information-theoretic bounds, even state-of-the-art models struggle to achieve competent performance.<n>We present WirelessMathLM, demonstrating that compact models (0.5B-7B parameters) can match or exceed much larger models through domain-specific reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T09:58:03Z)
• Seed-Prover: Deep and Broad Reasoning for Automated Theorem Proving [36.20164235042574]
  In this work, we propose textbfSeed-Prover, a lemma-style whole-proof reasoning model.<n>To solve IMO-level contest problems, we design three test-time inference strategies that enable both deep and broad reasoning.<n>Seed-Prover proves $78.1%$ of formalized past IMO problems, saturates MiniF2F, and achieves over 50% on PutnamBench, outperforming the previous state-of-the-art by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T17:00:30Z)
• Towards Solving More Challenging IMO Problems via Decoupled Reasoning and Proving [48.22540519786074]
  Recent studies show that the informal accuracy exceeds 80% while formal success remains below 8% on benchmarks like PutnamBench.<n>We propose a novel framework that decouples high-level reasoning from low-level proof generation.<n>We evaluate our method on a challenging set of post-2000 IMO problems, a problem set on which no prior open-source prover has reported success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T22:38:49Z)
• LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming? [88.29001498765629]
  Large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming.<n>We revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain.<n>We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI.<n>A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T16:29:09Z)
• 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)
• UGMathBench: A Diverse and Dynamic Benchmark for Undergraduate-Level Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models [11.964085209696051]
  UGMathBench comprises 5,062 problems across 16 subjects and 111 topics, featuring 10 distinct answer types.<n>Each problem includes three randomized versions, with additional versions planned for release as leading open-source LLMs become saturated in UGMathBench.<n>Our evaluation of 23 leading LLMs reveals that the highest EAcc robustness achieved is 56.3% by OpenAI-o1-mini, with large $Delta$ values observed across different models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T15:46:43Z)
• HARP: A challenging human-annotated math reasoning benchmark [7.691786865279827]
  We introduce HARP, Human Annotated Reasoning Problems (for Math), consisting of 5,409 problems from the US national math competitions (A(J)HSME, AMC, AIME, USA(J)MO).<n>Of these, 4,780 have answers that are automatically check-able (with libraries such as SymPy).<n>These problems range six difficulty levels, with frontier models performing relatively poorly on the hardest bracket of 197 problems (average accuracy 41.1% for o1-mini, and 9.6% for Gemini 1.5 Pro).<n>Our dataset also features multiple choices (for 4,110 problems) and an average of two human-written
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T23:31:06Z)
• ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning [62.80402845414901]
  We introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning.<n>ProcessBench consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems.<n>We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T15:11:40Z)
• 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)
• OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problems [62.06169250463104]
  We present OlympiadBench, an Olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific benchmark, featuring 8,476 problems from Olympiad-level mathematics and physics competitions. The best-performing model, GPT-4V, attains an average score of 17.97% on OlympiadBench, with a mere 10.74% in physics. Our analysis orienting GPT-4V points out prevalent issues with hallucinations, knowledge omissions, and logical fallacies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T18:49:26Z)
• An In-depth Look at Gemini's Language Abilities [49.897870833250494]
  We compare the abilities of the OpenAI GPT and Google Gemini models. We perform this analysis over 10 datasets testing a variety of language abilities. We find that Gemini Pro achieves accuracy that is close but slightly inferior to the corresponding GPT 3.5 Turbo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T18:47:42Z)
• MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuning [60.208045804204076]
  We introduce MAmmoTH, a series of open-source large language models (LLMs) specifically tailored for general math problem-solving. The MAmmoTH models are trained on MathInstruct, our meticulously curated instruction tuning dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T17:47:22Z)
• Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models [23.344490944210456]
  We present 515Bench, a more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of large language models (LLMs) We curate challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the highly competitive IIT-Advanced exam. Our evaluation on various open-source and proprietary models reveals that the highest performance, even after using techniques like self-consistency, self-refinement and chain-of-thought prompting, is less than 40%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:55:59Z)

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.