Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

MathDebugger introduces a rigorous benchmark for evaluating large language models' ability to detect and diagnose errors in synthetic mathematical datasets, addressing critical quality-control gaps as these resources scale reasoning capabilities. The study reveals that even advanced specialized models struggle with fine-grained error classification and exhibit a notable disconnect between solving performance and verification accuracy. This work provides essential tools for refining data synthesis pipelines and ensuring the reliability of training materials used to advance AI mathematics.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

MathDebugger: Detecting and Diagnosing Errors in Synthetic Mathematical Data

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2502.19058v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Synthetic mathematical data has become an important resource for scaling the reasoning capabilities of large language models, yet errors in generated questions and solutions can substantially undermine its value. We introduce MathDebugger, a type-aware benchmark for evaluating whether models can detect and diagnose errors in synthetic mathematical data. MathDebugger contains 2,000 correct questions, 2,000 erroneous questions balanced across four error types, and 2,000 annotated solutions, including 610 erroneous solutions spanning three error types. Each instance is manually verified and labeled for correctness, with erroneous instances further assigned a fine-grained error category. Human annotation achieves substantial to near-perfect agreement, with per-type Fleiss kappa ranging from 0.69 to 0.91. We evaluate 14 representative large language models and three process reward models. The results show that even strong reasoning models remain far from saturating MathDebugger, particularly when identifying fine-grained error types. We also uncover a consistent solving-verification gap: models specialized for mathematical reasoning or long-form reasoning do not necessarily outperform their general-purpose counterparts when auditing mathematical data. Finally, we show that explicit error-type information provides actionable guidance for correcting erroneous questions and solutions, yielding consistent and statistically significant improvements. MathDebugger provides a practical benchmark for developing more reliable mathematical data synthesis and quality-control pipelines.

Abstract:Synthetic mathematical data has become an important resource for scaling the reasoning capabilities of large language models, yet errors in generated questions and solutions can substantially undermine its value. We introduce MathDebugger, a type-aware benchmark for evaluating whether models can detect and diagnose errors in synthetic mathematical data. MathDebugger contains 2,000 correct questions, 2,000 erroneous questions balanced across four error types, and 2,000 annotated solutions, including 610 erroneous solutions spanning three error types. Each instance is manually verified and labeled for correctness, with erroneous instances further assigned a fine-grained error category. Human annotation achieves substantial to near-perfect agreement, with per-type Fleiss kappa ranging from 0.69 to 0.91. We evaluate 14 representative large language models and three process reward models. The results show that even strong reasoning models remain far from saturating MathDebugger, particularly when identifying fine-grained error types. We also uncover a consistent solving-verification gap: models specialized for mathematical reasoning or long-form reasoning do not necessarily outperform their general-purpose counterparts when auditing mathematical data. Finally, we show that explicit error-type information provides actionable guidance for correcting erroneous questions and solutions, yielding consistent and statistically significant improvements. MathDebugger provides a practical benchmark for developing more reliable mathematical data synthesis and quality-control pipelines.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2502.19058 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2502.19058v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.19058 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 · 294 words

Related coverage