RIDE: Difficulty Evolving Perturbation with Item Response Theory for Mathematical Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04120v1
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2025 07:10:17 GMT
- Title: RIDE: Difficulty Evolving Perturbation with Item Response Theory for Mathematical Reasoning
- Authors: Xinyuan Li, Murong Xu, Wenbiao Tao, Hanlun Zhu, Yike Zhao, Jipeng Zhang, Yunshi Lan,
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) achieve high performance on mathematical reasoning.<n>Current rule-based perturbation methods often generate ill-posed questions.<n>We propose RIDE, a novel adversarial question-rewriting framework.
- Score: 26.91583214616048
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve high performance on mathematical reasoning, but these results can be inflated by training data leakage or superficial pattern matching rather than genuine reasoning. To this end, an adversarial perturbation-based evaluation is needed to measure true mathematical reasoning ability. Current rule-based perturbation methods often generate ill-posed questions and impede the systematic evaluation of question difficulty and the evolution of benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we propose RIDE, a novel adversarial question-rewriting framework that leverages Item Response Theory (IRT) to rigorously measure question difficulty and to generate intrinsically more challenging, well-posed variations of mathematical problems. We employ 35 LLMs to simulate students and build a difficulty ranker from their responses. This ranker provides a reward signal during reinforcement learning and guides a question-rewriting model to reformulate existing questions across difficulty levels. Applying RIDE to competition-level mathematical benchmarks yields perturbed versions that degrade advanced LLM performance, with experiments showing an average 21.73% drop across 26 models, thereby exposing limited robustness in mathematical reasoning and confirming the validity of our evaluation approach.
Related papers
- RankLLM: Weighted Ranking of LLMs by Quantifying Question Difficulty [102.02839046225468]
RankLLM is a novel framework designed to quantify both question difficulty and model competency.<n>We evaluate 30 models on 35,550 questions across multiple domains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-12T21:28:46Z) - 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) - EvolMathEval: Towards Evolvable Benchmarks for Mathematical Reasoning via Evolutionary Testing [45.89558878854675]
EvolMathEval is an automated mathematical benchmark generation and evolution framework based on evolutionary testing.<n>It can generate a large volume of high-difficulty problems through continuous self-iteration.<n>It can also significantly enhance the complexity of public datasets like GSM8K through evolution, reducing model accuracy by an average of 48%.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-18T15:24:10Z) - 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) - Large Language Models and Mathematical Reasoning Failures [1.6114012813668932]
This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems.<n>We rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures.<n>We find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-17T09:07:32Z) - MATH-Perturb: Benchmarking LLMs' Math Reasoning Abilities against Hard Perturbations [90.07275414500154]
We observe significant performance drops on MATH-P-Hard across various models.<n>We also raise concerns about a novel form of memorization where models blindly apply learned problem-solving skills.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-10T13:31:46Z) - 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) - Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation.
We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets.
We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
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.