Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

CrowdMath reveals a critical capability gap in frontier models: while they can predict the next step in a mathematical discussion with high accuracy, they fail to classify the functional role of individual contributions, achieving only 0.42 macro-F1. This dataset of 164 expert-annotated progress chains highlights that current benchmarks are insufficient for evaluating collaborative open-problem solving where reasoning is incremental and error-prone. For researchers, this underscores the need for new evaluation metrics that capture the nuance of synthesizing partial arguments into complete proofs rather than just solving well-specified problems.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

CrowdMath: A Dataset of Crowdsourced Mathematical Research Discussions

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2606.06526v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models have made substantial progress on mathematical reasoning, but existing benchmarks typically evaluate well-specified problems with final answers, step-by-step solutions, or complete proofs. They do not capture collaborative open-problem solving: a setting in which participants propose partial arguments, identify gaps or errors in prior steps, repair flawed reasoning, and gradually synthesize incremental contributions into a proof. We introduce CrowdMath, a dataset of 164 expert-annotated progress chains from the MIT PRIMES--Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) CrowdMath program (2016-2025), a collaborative research initiative whose discussions have led to peer-reviewed publications. Each chain traces a multi-participant forum discussion from an open-problem statement to a completed proof. Posts are labeled by their functional roles in the evolving solution process, including partial progress, proof completion, erroneous reasoning, and error identification. We define evaluation tasks and benchmark six frontier models. Models achieve 83-88% accuracy on next-post prediction, suggesting that they can follow the local flow of mathematical discussion. However, they struggle to identify the functional significance of individual contributions with the best model achieving only 0.42 macro-F1 on post-role classification. CrowdMath exposes a gap between solving well-specified mathematical problems and understanding collaborative mathematical progress as it unfolds.

Abstract:Large language models have made substantial progress on mathematical reasoning, but existing benchmarks typically evaluate well-specified problems with final answers, step-by-step solutions, or complete proofs. They do not capture collaborative open-problem solving: a setting in which participants propose partial arguments, identify gaps or errors in prior steps, repair flawed reasoning, and gradually synthesize incremental contributions into a proof. We introduce CrowdMath, a dataset of 164 expert-annotated progress chains from the MIT PRIMES--Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) CrowdMath program (2016-2025), a collaborative research initiative whose discussions have led to peer-reviewed publications. Each chain traces a multi-participant forum discussion from an open-problem statement to a completed proof. Posts are labeled by their functional roles in the evolving solution process, including partial progress, proof completion, erroneous reasoning, and error identification. We define evaluation tasks and benchmark six frontier models. Models achieve 83-88% accuracy on next-post prediction, suggesting that they can follow the local flow of mathematical discussion. However, they struggle to identify the functional significance of individual contributions with the best model achieving only 0.42 macro-F1 on post-role classification. CrowdMath exposes a gap between solving well-specified mathematical problems and understanding collaborative mathematical progress as it unfolds.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2606.06526 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.06526v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.06526 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 288 words

Related coverage