Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

IMProofBench: Benchmarking AI on Research-Level Mathematical Proof Generation

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

arxiv 2509.26076 v2 pith:6YFZ65ZA submitted 2025-09-30 cs.CL

IMProofBench: Benchmarking AI on Research-Level Mathematical Proof Generation

classification cs.CL
keywords mathematicalimproofbenchllmsresearch-levelbenchmarkbenchmarksevaluationgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As the mathematical capabilities of large language models (LLMs) improve, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate their performance on research-level tasks at the frontier of mathematical knowledge. However, existing benchmarks are limited, as they focus solely on final-answer questions or high-school competition problems. To address this gap, we introduce IMProofBench, a private benchmark consisting of 77 peer-reviewed problems developed by expert mathematicians. Each problem requires a detailed proof and is paired with subproblems that have final answers, supporting both an evaluation by human experts and a large-scale quantitative analysis through automated grading. Furthermore, unlike prior benchmarks, the evaluation setup simulates a realistic research environment: models operate in an agentic framework with tools like web search for literature review and mathematical software such as SageMath. Our results show that current LLMs can already solve a significant percentage of research-level questions. IMProofBench will continue to evolve as a dynamic benchmark in collaboration with the mathematical community, ensuring its relevance for evaluating the next generation of LLMs.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Soohak: A Mathematician-Curated Benchmark for Evaluating Research-level Math Capabilities of LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Soohak is a new 439-problem mathematician-authored benchmark showing frontier LLMs reach only 30% on research math and fail to exceed 50% on refusing ill-posed questions.

  2. Soohak: A Mathematician-Curated Benchmark for Evaluating Research-level Math Capabilities of LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Soohak is a 439-problem mathematician-curated benchmark where frontier LLMs reach at most 30.4% on research math challenges and no model exceeds 50% on refusal for ill-posed problems.

  3. Failure Modes of Large Language Models on Research-Level Mathematics: A Taxonomy and an Empirical Characterisation

    cs.DL 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    This paper introduces a taxonomy of four LLM failure modes on research math proofs and empirically shows premise smuggling in all eight audited Gemini outputs, with a new audit instrument achieving 100% precision.

  4. Not All Proofs Are Equal: Evaluating LLM Proof Quality Beyond Correctness

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM proofs for hard math problems show large differences in quality metrics like conciseness and cognitive simplicity that correctness-only tests miss, along with trade-offs between quality and correctness.

  5. Not All Proofs Are Equal: Evaluating LLM Proof Quality Beyond Correctness

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    ProofRank benchmark shows substantial differences in LLM proof quality not captured by correctness, with trade-offs between quality metrics and accuracy.

  6. Evaluating SageMath-Augmented LLM Agents for Computational and Experimental Mathematics

    cs.AI 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5

    SageMath-augmented ReAct agents raise solve rates by +9.7 pp on average on a curated 133-problem RealMath subset, with GPT-5.5 reaching 75.2%.