A Matter of Interest: Understanding Interestingness of Math Problems in Humans and Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08548v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 02:04:20 GMT
• Title: A Matter of Interest: Understanding Interestingness of Math Problems in Humans and Language Models
• Authors: Shubhra Mishra, Yuka Machino, Gabriel Poesia, Albert Jiang, Joy Hsu, Adrian Weller, Challenger Mishra, David Broman, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Mateja Jamnik, Cedegao E. Zhang, Katherine M. Collins,
• Abstract summary: We show that while many AI systems agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments.<n>Most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales.
• Score: 77.83082730285206
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The evolution of mathematics has been guided in part by interestingness. From researchers choosing which problems to tackle next, to students deciding which ones to engage with, people's choices are often guided by judgments about how interesting or challenging problems are likely to be. As AI systems, such as LLMs, increasingly participate in mathematics with people -- whether for advanced research or education -- it becomes important to understand how well their judgments align with human ones. Our work examines this alignment through two empirical studies of human and LLM assessment of mathematical interestingness and difficulty, spanning a range of mathematical experience. We study two groups: participants from a crowdsourcing platform and International Math Olympiad competitors. We show that while many LLMs appear to broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments. Moreover, most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales. Together, our findings highlight both the promises and limitations of current LLMs in capturing human interestingness judgments for mathematical AI thought partnerships.

Related papers

• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• Humanlike Cognitive Patterns as Emergent Phenomena in Large Language Models [2.9312156642007294]
  We systematically review Large Language Models' capabilities across three important cognitive domains: decision-making biases, reasoning, and creativity.<n>On decision-making, our synthesis reveals that while LLMs demonstrate several human-like biases, some biases observed in humans are absent.<n>On reasoning, advanced LLMs like GPT-4 exhibit deliberative reasoning akin to human System-2 thinking, while smaller models fall short of human-level performance.<n>A distinct dichotomy emerges in creativity: while LLMs excel in language-based creative tasks, such as storytelling, they struggle with divergent thinking tasks that require real-world context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T02:26:56Z)
• Do Large Language Models Truly Grasp Mathematics? An Empirical Exploration From Cognitive Psychology [15.572185318032139]
  We show that, even with the use of Chains of Thought prompts, mainstream LLMs have a high error rate when solving modified CRT problems.<n>Specifically, the average accuracy rate dropped by up to 50% compared to the original questions.<n>This finding challenges the belief that LLMs have genuine mathematical reasoning abilities comparable to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T05:01:56Z)
• MathOdyssey: Benchmarking Mathematical Problem-Solving Skills in Large Language Models Using Odyssey Math Data [20.31528845718877]
  Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language understanding and demonstrated strong problem-solving abilities. This paper investigates the mathematical problem-solving capabilities of LLMs using the newly developed "MathOdyssey" dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T13:02:35Z)
• Evaluating Large Vision-and-Language Models on Children's Mathematical Olympiads [74.54183505245553]
  A systematic analysis of AI capabilities for joint vision and text reasoning is missing in the current scientific literature.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art LVLMs on their mathematical and algorithmic reasoning abilities using visuo-linguistic problems from children's Olympiads.<n>Our results show that modern LVLMs do demonstrate increasingly powerful reasoning skills in solving problems for higher grades, but lack the foundations to correctly answer problems designed for younger children.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T05:04:39Z)
• MacGyver: Are Large Language Models Creative Problem Solvers? [87.70522322728581]
  We explore the creative problem-solving capabilities of modern LLMs in a novel constrained setting.<n>We create MACGYVER, an automatically generated dataset consisting of over 1,600 real-world problems.<n>We present our collection to both LLMs and humans to compare and contrast their problem-solving abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:52:27Z)
• AI for Mathematics: A Cognitive Science Perspective [86.02346372284292]
  Mathematics is one of the most powerful conceptual systems developed and used by the human species. Rapid progress in AI, particularly propelled by advances in large language models (LLMs), has sparked renewed, widespread interest in building such systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T02:00:31Z)
• LLMs as Potential Brainstorming Partners for Math and Science Problems [0.0]
  A significant chasm still exists between current human-machine intellectual collaborations and the resolution of complex math and science problems. This is due to the recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) We conduct comprehensive case studies to explore both the capabilities and limitations of the current state-of-the-art LLM, notably GPT-4, in collective brainstorming with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T21:16:35Z)
• Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions [116.67206980096513]
  We introduce CheckMate, a prototype platform for humans to interact with and evaluate large language models (LLMs) We conduct a study with CheckMate to evaluate three language models (InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) as assistants in proving undergraduate-level mathematics. We derive a taxonomy of human behaviours and uncover that despite a generally positive correlation, there are notable instances of divergence between correctness and perceived helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T17:12:25Z)

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.