AIMO Interpretability Challenge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.13899v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:41:28 GMT
• Title: AIMO Interpretability Challenge
• Abstract summary: The challenge is motivated by a central limitation of standard reasoning benchmarks.<n>Strong final-answer accuracy does not reveal whether a model relies on stable reasoning mechanisms or exploits brittle reasoning shortcuts.<n>The competition will provide newly-published olympiad-level math reasoning problems and their symbolic representations.<n>Participants will use these resources, along with our computing infrastructure support, to develop methods for identifying which models solve problems robustly.
• Score: 45.73236376410173
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We propose the AIMO Interpretability Challenge, a competition on distinguishing robust from spurious reasoning in frontier mathematical language models based on the models' internal mechanisms. The challenge is motivated by a central limitation of standard reasoning benchmarks: strong final-answer accuracy does not reveal whether a model relies on stable reasoning mechanisms or exploits brittle reasoning shortcuts. Building on AI Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO) problems and submissions, together with resources from the Fields Model Initiative, the competition will provide (1) newly-published olympiad-level math reasoning problems and their symbolic representations, allowing generation of novel functional variants, (2) access to frontier reasoning models, and (3) assessments of models' adversarial robustness on these problems. Participants will use these resources, along with our computing infrastructure support, to develop methods for identifying which models solve problems robustly. Our competition will also create a new, open robustness benchmark and baseline systems, aiming to provide a lasting foundation for standard benchmarking in mathematical reasoning and interpretability. Scientifically, the competition connects interpretability and generalization research around a central question in AI research: can we determine if, and to what extent, the decision-making of frontier AI models is generalizable and thus, reliable?

Related papers

• INSPIRE: An Internalize-Then-Improve Approach for Example-Driven Mathematical Reasoning [61.60016491769943]
  In human mathematics education, example-based reasoning such as constructing counterexamples to test theorem boundaries reflects deep conceptual understanding.<n>We propose INSPIRE, an Internalize-Then-Improve approach combining Reference-Guided Student Internalization (RGSI) with a stage-wise preference training strategy.<n>Experiments across multiple model scales and families demonstrate consistent improvements, even surpassing larger open-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T03:24:03Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• Modeling Open-World Cognition as On-Demand Synthesis of Probabilistic Models [93.1043186636177]
  We explore the hypothesis that people use a combination of distributed and symbolic representations to construct bespoke mental models tailored to novel situations.<n>We propose a computational implementation of this idea -- a Model Synthesis Architecture''<n>We evaluate our MSA as a model of human judgments on a novel reasoning dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T18:01:03Z)
• Why Reasoning Matters? A Survey of Advancements in Multimodal Reasoning (v1) [66.51642638034822]
  Reasoning is central to human intelligence, enabling structured problem-solving across diverse tasks.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have greatly enhanced their reasoning abilities in arithmetic, commonsense, and symbolic domains.<n>This paper offers a concise yet insightful overview of reasoning techniques in both textual and multimodal LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T04:04:56Z)
• Large Language Models Meet Symbolic Provers for Logical Reasoning Evaluation [24.081573908824353]
  First-order logic (FOL) reasoning is pivotal for intelligent systems.<n>Existing benchmarks often rely on extensive human annotation or handcrafted templates.<n>We propose a novel framework called ProverGen that synergizes the generative strengths of Large Language Models with the rigor and precision of symbolic provers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:31:54Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• On the Reasoning Capacity of AI Models and How to Quantify It [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have intensified the debate surrounding the fundamental nature of their reasoning capabilities.<n>While achieving high performance on benchmarks such as GPQA and MMLU, these models exhibit limitations in more complex reasoning tasks.<n>We propose a novel phenomenological approach that goes beyond traditional accuracy metrics to probe the underlying mechanisms of model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T16:58:18Z)
• VCSearch: Bridging the Gap Between Well-Defined and Ill-Defined Problems in Mathematical Reasoning [26.61758685366347]
  We develop a benchmark called Problems with Missing and Contradictory conditions (PMC) containing over 5,000 validated ill-defined mathematical problems.<n>VCSEARCH improves the accuracy of identifying unsolvable problems by at least 12% across different large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T16:24:12Z)
• Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations [0.6138671548064356]
  We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T21:49:28Z)
• Modeling Boundedly Rational Agents with Latent Inference Budgets [56.24971011281947]
  We introduce a latent inference budget model (L-IBM) that models agents' computational constraints explicitly. L-IBMs make it possible to learn agent models using data from diverse populations of suboptimal actors. We show that L-IBMs match or outperform Boltzmann models of decision-making under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T03:55:51Z)
• Make Your Decision Convincing! A Unified Two-Stage Framework: Self-Attribution and Decision-Making [24.906886146275127]
  We propose a unified two-stage framework known as Self-Attribution and Decision-Making (SADM) We demonstrate that our framework not only establishes a more reliable link between the generated rationale and model decision but also achieves competitive results in task performance and the quality of rationale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T15:59:57Z)

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.