Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Frontier models still fail advanced natural-language math proofs under process-level checks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 02:42 UTC pith:VJJEAVS3

load-bearing objection Solid advanced-proof benchmark with real process labels; headline gaps are real enough to matter, but partly judge-dependent and the abstract/body numbers disagree. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11849 v1 pith:VJJEAVS3 submitted 2026-07-13 cs.CL

AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification

Lingkai Kong , Zijian Wu , Yuzhe Gu , Haiteng Zhao , Wenyong Huang , Shuang Sun , Zhicheng Xiong , Xiaotian Zhang
show 5 more authors
Shuya Zhao Yan Wang Disheng Xu Wenwei Zhang Kai Chen
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords mathematical proof generationproof verificationprocess-level evaluationLLM benchmarksundergraduate mathematicsqualifying examsmeta-verificationpessimistic verification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that high scores on high-school and olympiad answer benchmarks hide a deeper gap: models cannot yet construct or check rigorous proofs at undergraduate and doctoral qualifying-exam levels. It introduces AdvancedMathBench, whose ProverBench holds 245 proof problems (200 undergraduate, 45 qualifying-exam) spanning core mathematical subjects, and whose VerifierBench holds 888 model-generated proof trajectories labeled by experts. Because final answers cannot certify a proof, the authors train an automatic verification pipeline on large-scale expert annotations and use meta-verification of rationales. Under that process-level regime, the best generator reaches only 64.5 on the undergraduate split and 48.9 on the harder split, while the best verifier reaches only about 65 Balanced F1 and routinely misses fatal errors. The claim is that advanced mathematical reasoning must be measured by whether the proof chain itself is valid, not by whether a short answer matches.

Core claim

Under expert-aligned process verification, AdvancedMathBench remains unsolved for frontier models: the strongest proof generator scores 64.5 on the undergraduate split and 48.9 on the doctoral qualifying-exam split, and the strongest proof verifier reaches only about 65 Meta-Verification Balanced F1, driven by low true-negative rates that show models over-accept plausible but invalid proofs.

What carries the argument

The expert-aligned automatic verification pipeline: large-scale expert labels, positive-sample repair augmentation, reinforcement learning with meta-verification rewards, and 8-way pessimistic voting that accepts a proof only when every pass agrees it is correct.

Load-bearing premise

The trained automatic verifier and the meta-verifier are faithful enough proxies for PhD-level human judgment that the reported gaps and rankings are not mainly artifacts of judge bias or annotation skew.

What would settle it

On a held-out set of model proofs, independent PhD graders disagree with the automatic pipeline’s accept/reject decisions and fatal-error localizations at rates high enough to reverse the ranking or close the reported performance gap with competition-style benchmarks.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AdvancedMathBench, a suite for process-level evaluation of advanced natural-language mathematical proofs. ProverBench comprises 245 undergraduate (UG, n=200) and doctoral qualifying-exam (QE, n=45) proof problems; model-generated proofs are scored by an expert-aligned automatic verifier (Intern-S2-Preview-35B trained with Meta-Ver-RL, positive repair augmentation, and 8-way pessimistic voting). VerifierBench provides 888 model-generated proof trajectories with full-chain expert labels (fatal vs recoverable errors) and evaluates models on validity polarity plus rationale quality via a gpt-oss-120b meta-verifier. Experiments report that the best generator (GPT-5.5-xhigh) reaches only 64.5 UG / 48.9 QE under pessimistic verification, and the best verifier reaches ~65.1 Meta-Verification Balanced F1 with low true-negative rates, arguing that advanced proof construction and critical error detection remain open.

Significance. If the evaluation pipeline is sufficiently faithful to expert judgment, this is a timely and useful contribution: existing math benchmarks remain largely answer-centric or olympiad-focused, and natural-language proof validity is under-measured. Strengths include multi-source curation with PhD-level QC, a full-chain annotation protocol that separates fatal from recoverable errors, public prompts and annotation fields, and ablations (Table 3) showing that Meta-Ver-RL, extra annotation, positive augmentation, and pessimistic voting each improve held-out verifier quality over the base model and over frontier LLM-as-judge baselines. The UG→QE difficulty gradient and the systematic over-acceptance pattern (high TPR, low TNR) are informative for the field. The work would be more decisive with stronger external validation that reported rankings are not judge-dependent.

major comments (4)
  1. Abstract vs body numerical inconsistency is load-bearing for credibility. The abstract states ProverBench has 296 problems and that GPT-5.5-xhigh scores 75.8 / 66.1 on UGD and QE; §3.2 and Table 1 state 245 problems (200 UG + 45 QE) and 64.5 / 48.9. Figure 1 and the introduction repeat the body numbers. These cannot both be correct; the abstract must be reconciled with the tables before any claim about absolute performance or “room for improvement” can be trusted.
  2. §3.3 and §4.3: gpt-oss-120b is used both as the meta-verifier that produces every Meta-Verification column of Table 2 and as the RL reward judge for the auto-verifier. On the same VerifierBench, gpt-oss-120b itself scores only 47.9 Meta-Ver Balanced F1 and 32.0 TNR (Table 2). Training and evaluating with a meta-judge that systematically fails at true-negative detection risks baking in polarity bias and incomplete fatal-error localization. The paper should either replace or ensemble the meta-verifier with a stronger/human-calibrated judge, or report sensitivity of Table 2 rankings and of the trained auto-verifier to the meta-judge choice.
  3. §4.4 / Table 3: the auto-verifier is the sole scorer for all ProverBench generator rankings (Table 1), yet on the 94-example held-out set it reaches only 73.9 Meta-Ver Balanced F1 (TNR 69.1). That is better than GPT-5.5-xhigh and DeepSeek-V4-Pro as judges, but still leaves substantial residual disagreement with experts. There is no reported human re-grade of a stratified sample of accepted vs rejected model proofs, no inter-annotator agreement on the expert labels, and no correlation between auto-verifier scores and independent human rankings of generators. Without that, the absolute gaps (e.g., 64.5 UG / 48.9 QE) and the claim that AdvancedMathBench “remains unsolved” remain only partially validated against judge artifacts.
  4. §3.2 / Table 1: the QE split has only 45 problems. Several models score in the teens or single digits (e.g., Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview 17.8, gpt-oss-120b 2.2). No confidence intervals, bootstrap variance, or per-subject breakdowns are reported. With n=45 and a binary pessimistic accept/reject, small labeling or sampling shifts can reorder models. Either enlarge QE, report uncertainty, or temper claims that rest on fine QE differences.
minor comments (6)
  1. Abstract uses “UGD” and “strong agreement with human experts”; body uses “UG” and reports 73.9 Meta-Ver Bal. F1. Align terminology and tone with the measured agreement.
  2. Figure 1 caption and intro cite HMMT Feb. 2026 / USAMO 2026 scores from matharena.ai without stating evaluation protocol parity (answer-centric vs process-level). A short caveat would avoid over-reading the ↓41% comparison.
  3. §4.1–4.2: “approximately 2k” annotated examples and “approximately 1.2k” positive repairs are imprecise; exact counts and train/held-out split construction should be stated.
  4. Free parameters (reward scale EXACT/BASIC/POOR/WRONG, 8 pessimistic passes, verifier-uncertainty entropy threshold) are fixed without sensitivity analysis; a short appendix on ranking stability under nearby settings would help.
  5. Appendix A.2 examples and B prompts are useful; ensure LaTeX rendering of the isoperimetric and tempered-distribution examples is consistent with the main text’s claim of careful QC.
  6. Related Work is thorough; a brief explicit comparison table (coverage, proof vs answer, auto vs human judge) against Open Proof Corpus, IMO-Bench, ProcessBench, and FrontierMath would improve navigability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical benchmark paper with no derivation that reduces predictions to inputs by construction.

full rationale

AdvancedMathBench is a dataset-and-evaluation paper, not a first-principles derivation. ProverBench scores are produced by an automatic verifier trained on expert annotations and checked on a held-out set of 94 trajectories (Table 3); VerifierBench scores are produced by comparing model outputs to expert ground-truth labels via a meta-verifier. Neither result is defined as equal to its training inputs: the auto-verifier is optimized for agreement with human labels, then applied to new model-generated proofs, and the paper reports absolute model performance rather than claiming a closed-form prediction forced by a fitted parameter. Self-citations (e.g., Intern-S2, related process-verification work) supply tools and context but do not load-bear the central empirical claim that frontier models remain far from saturating UG/QE proof generation and verification. Mild methodological dependence (meta-verifier used both as RL reward and as an evaluated system; positive repair routed through strong models) is a judge-quality concern, not circularity of the enumerated kinds. No self-definitional identity, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-from-authors, or ansatz-smuggling step is present. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on expert gold labels, an LLM meta-verifier rubric, and engineering choices in the auto-verifier (reward scale, multi-pass pessimism, positive repair). No physical constants or fitted scientific laws; free parameters are evaluation/training design knobs. Invented entities are the benchmark artifacts and pipeline components themselves.

free parameters (3)
  • meta-verification reward scale (EXACT_MATCH=1.0, BASIC_MATCH=0.5, POOR_MATCH=0.25, WRONG_POLARITY=0)
    Hand-chosen discrete rewards used in GRPO training of the auto-verifier; they shape what “expert-aligned” means.
  • pessimistic verification pass count (8 independent passes)
    Acceptance threshold is all-8-agree; this design choice directly controls reported ProverBench scores and false-accept rate.
  • verifier-uncertainty entropy threshold for problem/proof retention
    Selection of hard problems and informative trajectories depends on repeated Intern-S2 verification entropy; exact cutoff is a curation free choice.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption PhD-level expert annotations of fatal vs recoverable errors constitute ground truth for proof validity and rationale quality.
    All VerifierBench labels and auto-verifier training targets rest on this (Section 3.3, Appendix C).
  • ad hoc to paper gpt-oss-120b meta-verification against expert GT is a reliable enough judge of verifier rationale quality for both evaluation and RL reward.
    Meta-Ver scores and Meta-Ver-RL training depend on this model-as-meta-judge (Sections 3.3, 4.3).
  • ad hoc to paper A proof accepted by all independent automatic verification passes is a valid process-level success for ranking generators.
    Pessimistic verification defines the ProverBench metric (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption Standard well-known theorems may be used in proofs; obscure research-level results are disallowed in generation guidelines.
    Generation prompt grading policy (Appendix B.1) shapes what counts as a legitimate proof.
invented entities (3)
  • ProverBench (UG/QE advanced natural-language proof set) no independent evidence
    purpose: Measure complete proof generation beyond final-answer benchmarks.
    Core generation benchmark artifact; independent evidence is the released problem set if/when public, not external physics-style prediction.
  • VerifierBench (888 problem-proof-GT triples) no independent evidence
    purpose: Measure binary validity judgment plus rationale/error localization quality.
    Core verification benchmark; value depends on expert labels rather than external corroboration.
  • Expert-aligned automatic verification pipeline (Meta-Ver-RL + positive augmentation + pessimistic voting) no independent evidence
    purpose: Scale process-level grading of model proofs for ProverBench.
    Paper-specific judge system; held-out F1 is internal evidence, not independent external validation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23039 in / 3452 out tokens · 32958 ms · 2026-07-14T02:42:09.087959+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and olympiad-style mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate advanced mathematical reasoning capabilities. Its core proof-generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 296 problems spanning undergraduate and doctoral qualifying-exam levels. To provide reliable evaluation of the proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline trained on large-scale expert annotations to produce both correctness verdicts and fine-grained assessments of proof errors, which exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 75.8 and 66.1 on the UGD and QE splits, respectively, indicating substantial room for improvement on advanced mathematical proof construction. On proof verification, the best model attains a Balanced F1 of only 65.1, and models generally exhibit low true negative rates, suggesting that critical error detection remains a major bottleneck.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Claude Opus 4.8 model documentation, 2026

    Anthropic. Claude Opus 4.8 model documentation, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-12. 5.1

    2026

  2. [2]

    Intern-S1: A scientific multimodal foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15763, 2025

    Lei Bai, Zhongrui Cai, Maosong Cao, Weihan Cao, Chiyu Chen, Haojiong Chen, Kai Chen, Pengcheng Chen, Ying Chen, Yongkang Chen, et al. Intern-S1: A scientific multimodal foundation model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15763, 2025. 1

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Loos, Markus N

    Kshitij Bansal, Sarah M. Loos, Markus N. Rabe, Christian Szegedy, and Stewart Wilcox. HOList: An environment for machine learning of higher-order theorem proving.CoRR, abs/1904.03241, 2019. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  4. [4]

    Rimo: An easy-to-evaluate, hard-to-solve olympiad benchmark for advanced mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07711, 2025

    Ziye Chen, Chengwei Qin, and Yao Shu. Rimo: An easy-to-evaluate, hard-to-solve olympiad benchmark for advanced mathematical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.07711, 2025. 1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    U-MATH: A university-level benchmark for evaluating mathematical skills in large language models.CoRR, abs/2412.03205, 2024

    Konstantin Chernyshev, Vitaliy Polshkov, Ekaterina Artemova, Alex Myasnikov, Vlad Stepanov, Alexei Miasnikov, and Sergei Tilga. U-MATH: A university-level benchmark for evaluating mathematical skills in large language models.CoRR, abs/2412.03205, 2024. 1, 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.CoRR, abs/2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.CoRR, abs/2110.14168, 2021. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    DeepSeek-V4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence

    DeepSeek-AI, Anyi Xu, et al. DeepSeek-V4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence. CoRR, abs/2606.19348, 2026. 1

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Beyond benchmarks: Matharena as an evaluation platform for mathematics with LLMs

    Jasper Dekoninck, Nikola Jovanović, Tim Gehrunger, Kári Rögnvaldsson, Ivo Petrov, Chenhao Sun, and Martin Vechev. Beyond benchmarks: Matharena as an evaluation platform for mathematics with LLMs. CoRR, abs/2605.00674, 2026. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Wang, Kaylie Hausknecht, Jonah Brenner, Danxian Liu, Nianli Peng, Corey Wang, and Michael P

    Jingxuan Fan, Sarah Martinson, Erik Y. Wang, Kaylie Hausknecht, Jonah Brenner, Danxian Liu, Nianli Peng, Corey Wang, and Michael P. Brenner. HARDMath: A benchmark dataset for challenging problems in applied mathematics.CoRR, abs/2410.09988, 2024. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Omni-math: A universal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models.CoRR, abs/2410.07985, 2024

    Bofei Gao, Feifan Song, Zhe Yang, Zefan Cai, Yibo Miao, Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Chenghao Ma, Liang Chen, Runxin Xu, Zhengyang Tang, Benyou Wang, Daoguang Zan, Shanghaoran Quan, Ge Zhang, Lei Sha, Yichang Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Tianyu Liu, and Baobao Chang. Omni-math: A universal olympiad level mathematic benchmark for large language models.CoRR, abs/2410.079...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Long-horizon reasoning agent for olympiad-level mathematical problem solving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10739, 2025

    Songyang Gao, Yuzhe Gu, Zijian Wu, Lingkai Kong, Wenwei Zhang, Zhongrui Cai, Fan Zheng, Tianyou Ma, Junhao Shen, Haiteng Zhao, et al. Long-horizon reasoning agent for olympiad-level mathematical problem solving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10739, 2025. 4.1

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Frontiermath: A benchmark for evaluating advanced mathematical reasoning in AI.CoRR, abs/2411.04872, 2024

    Elliot Glazer, Ege Erdil, Tamay Besiroglu, Diego Chicharro, Evan Chen, Alex Gunning, Caroline Falk- man Olsson, Jean-Stanislas Denain, Anson Ho, Emily de Oliveira Santos, Olli Järviniemi, Matthew Barnett, Robert Sandler, Matej Vrzala, Jaime Sevilla, Qiuyu Ren, Elizabeth Pratt, Lionel Levine, Grant Barkley, Natalie Stewart, Bogdan Grechuk, Tetiana Grechuk,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Gemini API models: Gemini 3.1 Pro, 2026

    Google. Gemini API models: Gemini 3.1 Pro, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-08. 5.1 10 AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification

    2026

  14. [14]

    Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting AGI with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Leng Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, Jie Liu, Lei Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting AGI with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. CoRR, abs/2402.14008, 2024. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset.CoRR, abs/2103.03874,

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Ja- cob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset.CoRR, abs/2103.03874,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    The imitation game: Turing Machine imitator is length generalizable reasoner.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13332, 2025

    Zhouqi Hua, Wenwei Zhang, Chengqi Lyu, Yuzhe Gu, Songyang Gao, Kuikun Liu, Dahua Lin, and Kai Chen. The imitation game: Turing Machine imitator is length generalizable reasoner.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13332, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    GamePad: A learning environment for theorem proving.CoRR, abs/1806.00608, 2018

    Daniel Huang, Prafulla Dhariwal, Dawn Song, and Ilya Sutskever. GamePad: A learning environment for theorem proving.CoRR, abs/1806.00608, 2018. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Pessimistic verification for open ended math questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21522, 2025

    Yanxing Huang, Zihan Tang, Zejin Lin, Peng Li, and Yang Liu. Pessimistic verification for open ended math questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21522, 2025. 4.4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Intern-S2-Preview.https://huggingface.co/internlm/Intern-S2-Preview,

    InternLM Team. Intern-S2-Preview.https://huggingface.co/internlm/Intern-S2-Preview,

  20. [20]

    Accessed: 2026-07-08

    Hugging Face model repository. Accessed: 2026-07-08. 3.1

    2026

  21. [21]

    The open proof corpus: A human-evaluated corpus of large language model proofs.CoRR, abs/2506.21621, 2025

    Jasper De Koninck et al. The open proof corpus: A human-evaluated corpus of large language model proofs.CoRR, abs/2506.21621, 2025. 1, 2

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    HyperTree Proof Search for neural theorem proving.CoRR, abs/2205.11491, 2022

    Guillaume Lample, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Xavier Martinet, Amaury Hayat, Gabriel Ebner, Aurélien Rodriguez, and Timothée Lacroix. HyperTree Proof Search for neural theorem proving.CoRR, abs/2205.11491, 2022. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Verifybench: Benchmarking verifiers for expert-level reasoning.CoRR, abs/2507.09884, 2025

    Li et al. Verifybench: Benchmarking verifiers for expert-level reasoning.CoRR, abs/2507.09884, 2025. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Let’s verify step by step.CoRR, abs/2305.20050, 2023

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step.CoRR, abs/2305.20050, 2023. 1, 2, 3.3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    ThoughtFold: Folding reasoning chains via introspective preference learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.03503, 2026

    Ziyan Liu, Xueda Shen, Yuzhe Gu, Songyang Gao, Kuikun Liu, Guangran Cheng, Chengqi Lyu, Dahua Lin, Wenwei Zhang, and Kai Chen. ThoughtFold: Folding reasoning chains via introspective preference learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.03503, 2026. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Towards robust mathematical reasoning: Evaluating large language models on olympiad-level proofs and grading.CoRR, abs/2511.01846, 2025

    Luong et al. Towards robust mathematical reasoning: Evaluating large language models on olympiad-level proofs and grading.CoRR, abs/2511.01846, 2025. 1, 2

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Kimi-K2.6 model documentation.https://platform.moonshot.ai/docs/guide/ choose-model, 2026

    Moonshot AI. Kimi-K2.6 model documentation.https://platform.moonshot.ai/docs/guide/ choose-model, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-12. 5.1

    2026

  28. [28]

    Update to GPT-5 system card: GPT-5.2, 2025

    OpenAI. Update to GPT-5 system card: GPT-5.2, 2025. Accessed: 2026-07-08. 5.1

    2025

  29. [29]

    GPT-5.5 system card, 2026

    OpenAI. GPT-5.5 system card, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-08. 1

    2026

  30. [30]

    gpt-oss-120b and gpt-oss-20b model card.CoRR, abs/2508.10925,

    OpenAI, Sandhini Agarwal, et al. gpt-oss-120b and gpt-oss-20b model card.CoRR, abs/2508.10925,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Hard2verify: A benchmark for step-level verification of hard mathematical reasoning.CoRR, abs/2510.13744, 2025

    Pandit et al. Hard2verify: A benchmark for step-level verification of hard mathematical reasoning.CoRR, abs/2510.13744, 2025. 2

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Not all proofs are equal: Evaluating LLM proof quality beyond correctness.CoRR, abs/2605.10379, 2026

    Ivo Petrov et al. Not all proofs are equal: Evaluating LLM proof quality beyond correctness.CoRR, abs/2605.10379, 2026. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Qwen3.5-397B-A17B model repository

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B model repository. https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3. 5-397B-A17B, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-12. 5.1 11 AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification

    2026

  34. [34]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. 4.3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Naturalproofs: Mathematical theorem proving in natural language.CoRR, abs/2104.01112, 2021

    Sean Welleck et al. Naturalproofs: Mathematical theorem proving in natural language.CoRR, abs/2104.01112, 2021. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Naturalprover: Grounded mathematical proof generation with language models

    Sean Welleck et al. Naturalprover: Grounded mathematical proof generation with language models. CoRR, abs/2205.12910, 2022. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    OPV-Bench: Outcome-based process verification for long chain-of-thought reasoning.CoRR, abs/2512.10756, 2025

    Wu et al. OPV-Bench: Outcome-based process verification for long chain-of-thought reasoning.CoRR, abs/2512.10756, 2025. 2, 3.1, 3.3

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Rethinking math reasoning evaluation.CoRR, abs/2604.22597, 2026

    Yosef et al. Rethinking math reasoning evaluation.CoRR, abs/2604.22597, 2026. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Deeptheorem: Advancing LLM rea- soning for theorem proving through natural language and reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2505.23754,

    Ziyin Zhang, Jiahao Xu, Zhiwei He, Tian Liang, Qiuzhi Liu, Yansi Li, Linfeng Song, Zhenwen Liang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Deeptheorem: Advancing LLM rea- soning for theorem proving through natural language and reinforcement learning.CoRR, abs/2505.23754,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Achieving olympia-level geometry large language model agent via Complexity-Boosting Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10534, 2025

    Haiteng Zhao, Junhao Shen, Yiming Zhang, Songyang Gao, Kuikun Liu, Tianyou Ma, Fan Zheng, Dahua Lin, Wenwei Zhang, and Kai Chen. Achieving olympia-level geometry large language model agent via Complexity-Boosting Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10534, 2025. 1

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning.CoRR, abs/2412.06559,

    Zheng et al. Processbench: Identifying process errors in mathematical reasoning.CoRR, abs/2412.06559,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging LLM-as-a- judge with MT-Bench and chatbot arena.CoRR, abs/2306.05685, 2023. 1, 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    GLM-5.2 model documentation.https://docs.z.ai/guides/models, 2026

    Zhipu AI. GLM-5.2 model documentation.https://docs.z.ai/guides/models, 2026. Accessed: 2026-07-12. 5.1

    2026

  44. [44]

    JETTS: Evaluating LLM-as-judge for test-time scaling.CoRR, abs/2504.15253, 2025

    Zhou et al. JETTS: Evaluating LLM-as-judge for test-time scaling.CoRR, abs/2504.15253, 2025. 2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    \\(" and

    YichengZou,DongshengZhu,LinZhu,TongZhu,YunhuaZhou,etal. Intern-S1-Pro: Scientificmultimodal foundation model at trillion scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25040, 2026. 1 12 AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification A. Benchmark Details A.1. Subject Distributions Table4: Subject distributions of the UG a...

    arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    **Mathematical validity** of the proof’s reasoning and conclusion

  47. [47]

    **Problem constraints** (e.g., unique required final value; forbidden tools if stated)

  48. [48]

    **Alternative-approach policy:** - If the proof uses a different but valid method, accept it as long as the reasoning is mathematically sound and satisfies the problem constraints

    **Reference solution** (when present) as an anchor for sufficiency, not exclusivity. **Alternative-approach policy:** - If the proof uses a different but valid method, accept it as long as the reasoning is mathematically sound and satisfies the problem constraints. - **Do not penalize** solely for re-ordering steps, using different lemmas, or giving a cor...

  49. [49]

    score X",

    specific error 2, ... </errors> <first_error_step>2</first_error_step> -------------------------------------------------- **Problem Statement** {problem} **Reference Solution (optional)** {human_solution} **Proof Solution** {solution} B.3. Meta-Verification Prompt The following prompt is used to evaluate model-generated verification outputs against expert...

  50. [50]

    whether GT treats the proof as correct or incorrect

  51. [51]

    whether the verifier treats the proof as correct or incorrect

  52. [52]

    which verifier-identified errors actually match GT

  53. [53]

    whether the verifier found the GT first fatal error, if any

  54. [54]

    whether the verifier found all relevant GT recoverable errors

  55. [55]

    whether the verifier introduced false positives

  56. [56]

    the verifier’s overall correctness and completeness relative to GT ## Matching Rule A verifier-identified issue counts as a correct GT match only if:

  57. [57]

    **Step match**: it points to the same GT-labeled erroneous step

  58. [58]

    **Reason match**: its reason is materially aligned with ‘reviewer_comment‘

  59. [59]

    **Grounding**: the claim is supported by the Proof Solution text Exact wording is not required, but the underlying issue must materially match GT. ## False Positives and Misses A verifier claim is a **false positive** if: - it flags a step not labeled erroneous by GT, or - its reason does not materially align with GT, or - the claim is not supported by th...

  60. [60]

    whether GT treats the Proof Solution as correct or incorrect,

  61. [61]

    whether the verifier treats it as correct or incorrect,

  62. [62]

    which verifier-claimed errors match GT in step and reason,

  63. [63]

    whether the GT first fatal error was found,

  64. [64]

    which GT recoverable errors were matched or missed,

  65. [65]

    whether there are false positives,

  66. [66]

    Mention step indices explicitly when discussing matched, missed, or false-positive errors

    why the final feedback level was assigned. Mention step indices explicitly when discussing matched, missed, or false-positive errors. 18 AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification <level>EXACT_MATCH|BASIC_MATCH|POOR_MATCH|WRONG_POLARITY</level> ## INPUT ## Problem Statement {problem} ## Reference Solut...