aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a process-level benchmark to evaluate the agentic mathematical reasoning of Large Language Models, moving beyond simple final-answer accuracy. By aligning model behaviors with a taxonomy of atomic capabilities, the study reveals that models with similar overall accuracy can possess vastly different underlying logical profiles. This diagnostic approach is essential for developing robust, next-generation mathematical agents and understanding their true potential.
From Atomic to Agentic: Towards Interpretable Evaluation of LLMs' Agentic Mathematical Capabilities
arXiv:2608.26950v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from performing end-to-end mathematical reasoning to integrating agentic intelligence. However, most existing math benchmarks evaluate only final answers. This outcome-oriented evaluation provides limited diagnostic value for identifying process-level failures or rigorous logic, failing to guide the transformation of LLMs into robust agents. To bridge this gap, we present a process-level benchmark designed to evaluate the inherent agentic mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our framework aligns problem-solving agentic behaviors with a structured taxonomy of reusable mathematical atomic capabilities. We design a comprehensive suite of planning, action, and feedback tasks across both textual and multimodal contexts, supported by an automated pipeline that synthesizes high-quality trajectories and produces fine-grained annotations via controlled LLM rewriting. Experiments reveal that models with similar end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles. This demonstrates that process-level evaluation is crucial for interpreting the true potential of LLMs and guiding the development of next-generation mathematical agents.
Authors:Jiayi Kuang, Yinghui Li, Yunze Song, Keyu Chen, Zhifeng Shen, Yangning Li, Yidong Wang, Di Yin, Ruizhi Qiao, Xing Sun, Kai Jin, Ying Shen, Liang Lin, Philip S. Yu
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving from performing end-to-end mathematical reasoning to integrating agentic intelligence. However, most existing math benchmarks evaluate only final answers. This outcome-oriented evaluation provides limited diagnostic value for identifying process-level failures or rigorous logic, failing to guide the transformation of LLMs into robust agents. To bridge this gap, we present a process-level benchmark designed to evaluate the inherent agentic mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Our framework aligns problem-solving agentic behaviors with a structured taxonomy of reusable mathematical atomic capabilities. We design a comprehensive suite of planning, action, and feedback tasks across both textual and multimodal contexts, supported by an automated pipeline that synthesizes high-quality trajectories and produces fine-grained annotations via controlled LLM rewriting. Experiments reveal that models with similar end-to-end accuracy can exhibit markedly different agentic capability profiles. This demonstrates that process-level evaluation is crucial for interpreting the true potential of LLMs and guiding the development of next-generation mathematical agents.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.26950 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.26950v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26950 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 205 words
Related coverage

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · Sep 24, 2026
Angles of attack for continual learning safety
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026

Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · Sep 14, 2026
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026