Benchmarks in Leipzig
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05818v1
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 07:59:08 GMT
- Title: Benchmarks in Leipzig
- Abstract summary: Between April 1 and May 15, 2026, a group of 49 mathematicians compiled a dataset of research-level mathematics questions with known answers.<n>We evaluate these questions in three stages: a single attempt by five state-of-the-art LLMs, a 20-runs-per-model evaluation, and a 3-run attempt with two heavy-thinking models.<n>After Stage 1, 41 questions remained completely unsolved; after Stage 2, this count dropped to 16; and we concluded Stage 3 with only 2 unsolved questions.
- Score: 62.700298058731505
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Between April 1 and May 15, 2026, a group of 49 mathematicians compiled a dataset of research-level mathematics questions with known answers. Most of the work was done during the 3-day workshop *Benchmarks in Leipzig* with 35 participants at the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences in Leipzig, Germany. We present the resulting collection of 100 questions. We evaluated these questions in three stages: a single attempt by five state-of-the-art LLMs, followed by a 20-runs-per-model evaluation with three of these models, and finally a 3-run attempt with two heavy-thinking models. After Stage 1, 41 questions remained completely unsolved; after Stage 2, this count dropped to 16; and we concluded Stage 3 with only 2 unsolved questions. This demonstrates that the mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs are becoming impressive.
Related papers
- Soohak: A Mathematician-Curated Benchmark for Evaluating Research-level Math Capabilities of LLMs [86.49905745865038]
Soohak is a 439-problem benchmark newly authored from scratch by 64 mathematicians.<n>The dataset will be publicly released in late 2026, with model evaluations available upon request in the interim.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-09T17:14:22Z) - Assessing the Capability of LLMs in Solving POSCOMP Questions [1.2928804566606342]
This study investigates whether Large Language Models can match or surpass human performance on the POSCOMP exam.<n>Four models were initially evaluated on the 2022 and 2023 POSCOMP exams.<n>The assessments measured the models' proficiency in handling complex questions typical of the exam.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-24T13:40:53Z) - HARDMath: A Benchmark Dataset for Challenging Problems in Applied Mathematics [1.5716764919736026]
We introduce HARDMath, a dataset featuring challenging applied mathematics problems that require analytical approximation techniques.<n>Our framework auto-generates a large number of problems with solutions validated against numerical ground truths.<n>We evaluate both open- and closed-source LLMs on HARDMath-mini, a sub-sampled test set of 366 problems, as well as on 40 word problems formulated in applied science contexts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-13T20:09:41Z) - 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) - SciEx: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Scientific Exams with Human Expert Grading and Automatic Grading [100.02175403852253]
One common use of Large Language Models (LLMs) is performing tasks on scientific topics.
Inspired by the way university students are evaluated on such tasks, we propose SciEx - a benchmark consisting of university computer science exam questions.
We evaluate the performance of various state-of-the-art LLMs on our new benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-14T21:52:21Z) - LLMs Are Not Intelligent Thinkers: Introducing Mathematical Topic Tree Benchmark for Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs [8.89259409245068]
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities in mathematical reasoning.<n>We present the Mathematical Topics Tree (MaTT) benchmark, a challenging and structured benchmark that offers 1,958 questions.<n>We find that the most advanced model, GPT-4, achieved a mere 54% accuracy in a multiple-choice scenario.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-07T18:21:26Z) - Can LLMs Master Math? Investigating Large Language Models on Math Stack Exchange [25.419977967846144]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in various natural language tasks.
This paper explores the current limitations of LLMs in navigating complex mathematical problem-solving.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-30T12:48:31Z) - 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.