MathBench: Evaluating the Theory and Application Proficiency of LLMs with a Hierarchical Mathematics Benchmark (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Hongwei Liu, Zilong Zheng, Yuxuan Qiao, Haodong Duan, Zhiwei Fei, Fengzhe Zhou, Wenwei Zhang, Songyang Zhang, Dahua Lin, Kai Chen
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models have showcased significant improvements in mathematics, but traditional benchmarks like GSM8k offer a unidimensional perspective. |
| Approach: | MathBench is a benchmark that rigorously assesses the mathematical capabilities of large language models. |
| Outcome: | MathBench spans a wide range of mathematical disciplines, offering a detailed evaluation of both theoretical understanding and practical problem-solving skills. |
Similar Papers
PyraMathBench: Evaluating and Improving Mathematical Capability in Large Language Models (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Numerical reasoning is ubiquitous in scientific research and financial analysis, but few benchmarks evaluate them by integrating numerical processing and mathematical reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose a numerically-integrated hierarchical benchmark with 27,215 questions derived from 7,404 math word problems that spans 4 key cognitive aspects, 14 subcategories, and 2 modalities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves Qwen-2.5 score with SOLVE and IRPO training. |
Exposing Numeracy Gaps: A Benchmark to Evaluate Fundamental Numerical Abilities in Large Language Models (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Haoyang Li, Xuejia Chen, Zhanchao Xu, Darian Li, Nicole Hu, Fei Teng, Yiming Li, Luyu Qiu, Chen Jason Zhang, Li Qing, Lei Chen
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks focus on linguistic competence or structured mathematical problem-solving, neglecting fundamental numerical reasoning required in real-world scenarios. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate numerical capabilities for large language models . they use a dataset to assess number recognition, arithmetic operations, contextual retrieval, comparison, summary, and multi-step reasoning. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates six fundamental numerical capabilities: number recognition, arithmetic operations, contextual retrieval, comparison, summary, and multi-step reasoning. |
ScholarBench: A Bilingual Benchmark for Abstraction, Comprehension, and Reasoning Evaluation in Academic Contexts (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | ScholarBench evaluates domain-specific knowledge of large language models (LLMs) prior benchmarks lack the scalability to handle complex academic tasks. |
| Approach: | ScholarBench evaluates the academic reasoning ability of large language models . the benchmark is constructed through a three-step process . |
| Outcome: | ScholarBench evaluates the academic reasoning ability of large language models . the benchmark comprises 5,031 examples in Korean and 5,309 examples in English . |
Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance on complex benchmarks yet sometimes fail on basic math reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate the efficiency of reasoning in large language models . they formalize the accuracy-verbosity tradeoff and introduce the overthinking score . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs well on complex benchmarks but fails on basic math reasoning . the proposed model generates 18 more tokens while achieving lower accuracy . |
LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language Models (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Zhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou, Zhuo Han, Alan Huang, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen, Zhixin Yin, Zongwen Shen, Jidong Ge, Vincent Ng
| Challenge: | LegalBench evaluated 20 LLMs in 162 legal tasks in 20 countries and jurisdictions. |
| Approach: | They present a comprehensive evaluation of 21 popular Large Language Models and the first comparative analysis of the empirical results. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks are based on the Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy and are compared to 21 popular LLMs. |
ModelingAgent: Bridging LLMs and Mathematical Modeling for Real-World Challenges (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Cheng Qian, Hongyi Du, Hongru Wang, Xiusi Chen, Yuji Zhang, Avirup Sil, ChengXiang Zhai, Kathleen McKeown, Heng Ji
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for large language models fail to reflect real-world complexity . existing benchmarks often fail to capture real-life problems . |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that features real-world-inspired, open-ended problems from competitions . they propose 'ModelingBench' that supports multiple valid solutions . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms baselines and produces well-grounded, creative solutions. |
WirelessMathBench: A Mathematical Modeling Benchmark for LLMs in Wireless Communications (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive results across a broad array of tasks, yet their capacity for complex, domain-specific mathematical reasoning remains underexplored. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models on mathematical modeling challenges to wireless communications engineering. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark evaluates LLMs on mathematical modeling challenges to wireless communications engineering. |
CFBench: A Comprehensive Constraints-Following Benchmark for LLMs (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Tao Zhang, ChengLIn Zhu, Yanjun Shen, Wenjing Luo, Yan Zhang, Hao Liang, Tao Zhang, Fan Yang, Mingan Lin, Yujing Qiao, Weipeng Chen, Bin Cui, Wentao Zhang, Zenan Zhou
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) focus on fragmented constraints or narrow scenarios, but they overlook the comprehensiveness and authenticity of constraints from the user’s perspective. |
| Approach: | They propose a Chinese Comprehensive Constraints Following Benchmark for LLMs that compiles constraints from real-world instructions and constructs a systematic framework for constraint types. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework integrates multi-dimensional assessment criteria with requirement prioritization, covering various perspectives of constraints, instructions, and requirement fulfillment. |
MuBench: Assessment of Multilingual Capabilities of Large Language Models Across 61 Languages (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation datasets lack cross-lingual alignment, leaving assessments of multilingual capabilities fragmented in both language and skill coverage. |
| Approach: | They propose to use multilingual consistency as a complementary metric to assess performance bottlenecks and guide model improvement. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model lacks cross-lingual alignment and language coverage gaps between state-of-the-art models. |
LLMs for Mathematical Modeling: Towards Bridging the Gap between Natural and Mathematical Languages (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across various natural language processing tasks, but their proficiency in mathematical reasoning remains a key challenge. |
| Approach: | They propose a process-oriented framework to evaluate LLMs' ability to construct mathematical models, using solvers to compare outputs with ground truth. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates LLMs' ability to construct mathematical models, using solvers to compare outputs with ground truth. |