REVIEW 6 cited by
CombiBench: Benchmarking LLM Capability for Combinatorial Mathematics
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
CombiBench: Benchmarking LLM Capability for Combinatorial Mathematics
read the original abstract
Neurosymbolic approaches integrating large language models with formal reasoning have recently achieved human-level performance on mathematics competition problems in algebra, geometry and number theory. In comparison, combinatorics remains a challenging domain, characterized by a lack of appropriate benchmarks and theorem libraries. To address this gap, we introduce CombiBench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 100 combinatorial problems, each formalized in Lean~4 and paired with its corresponding informal statement. The problem set covers a wide spectrum of difficulty levels, ranging from middle school to IMO and university level, and span over ten combinatorial topics. CombiBench is suitable for testing IMO solving capabilities since it includes all IMO combinatorial problems since 2000 (except IMO 2004 P3 as its statement contain an images). Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive and standardized evaluation framework, dubbed Fine-Eval (for $\textbf{F}$ill-in-the-blank $\textbf{in}$ L$\textbf{e}$an Evaluation), for formal mathematics. It accommodates not only proof-based problems but also, for the first time, the evaluation of fill-in-the-blank questions. Using Fine-Eval as the evaluation method and Kimina Lean Server as the backend, we benchmark several LLMs on CombiBench and observe that their capabilities for formally solving combinatorial problems remain limited. Among all models tested (none of which has been trained for this particular task), Kimina-Prover attains the best results, solving 7 problems (out of 100) under both ``with solution'' and ``without solution'' scenarios. We open source the benchmark dataset alongside with the code of the proposed evaluation method at https://github.com/MoonshotAI/CombiBench/.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
TheoremBench: Evaluating LLMs on Theorem Proving in Formal Mathematics
TheoremBench is a Lean4 benchmark of classical theorems in main and premised forms that evaluates LLM provers on partial progress, coverage, and token efficiency rather than binary success on competition problems.
-
FormalRx: Rectify and eXamine Semantic Failures in Autoformalization
FormalRx diagnoses Lean autoformalization failures with a 28-category SCI taxonomy and an 8B model that jointly predicts alignment, error type, location, and correction.
-
Faults in Our Formal Benchmarking: Dataset Defects and Evaluation Failures in Lean Theorem Proving
Audit of five Lean theorem-proving benchmarks identifies 4,833 findings with 398 certified issues and shows dataset defects can inflate or deflate prover scores.
-
GTBench: A Curriculum-Grounded Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs as Mathematical Research Assistants in Graph Theory
GTBench is a new curriculum-grounded benchmark showing GPT-5 performs strongly on basic graph theory tasks but all models, including it, struggle more on advanced proofs with notable evaluator disagreements.
-
CAM-Bench: A Benchmark for Computational and Applied Mathematics in Lean
CAM-Bench is a new Lean 4 theorem-proving benchmark of 1,000 problems in computational and applied mathematics, built from textbook exercises using a dependency-recovery pipeline to reconstruct local context.
-
From Solvers to Research: Large Language Model-Driven Formal Mathematics at the Research Frontier
LLM formal provers must shift from competition solvers to research agents that handle open-ended, under-specified frontier mathematics under machine-checked rigor.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.