Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

LemmaBench: A Live, Research-Level Benchmark to Evaluate LLM Capabilities in Mathematics

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 2602.24173 v2 pith:3X6HCVDM submitted 2026-02-27 cs.AI

LemmaBench: A Live, Research-Level Benchmark to Evaluate LLM Capabilities in Mathematics

classification cs.AI
keywords benchmarkresearchcapabilitiesmathematicsdirectlylargellmsmathematical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a new approach for benchmarking Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities on research-level mathematics. Existing benchmarks largely rely on static, hand-curated sets of contest or textbook-style problems as proxies for mathematical research. Instead, we establish an updatable benchmark evaluating models directly on the latest research results in mathematics. This consists of an automatic pipeline that extracts lemmas from arXiv and rewrites them into self-contained statements by making all assumptions and required definitions explicit. It results in a benchmark that can be updated regularly with new problems taken directly from human mathematical research, while previous instances can be used for training without compromising future evaluations. We benchmark current state-of-the-art LLMs, which obtain around 10-15$\%$ accuracy in theorem proving (pass@1) depending on the model, showing that there is currently a large margin of progression for LLMs to reach human-level proving capabilities in a research context.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Matlas: A Semantic Search Engine for Mathematics

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Matlas introduces a semantic retrieval system over 8.07 million mathematical statements from papers and textbooks, using dependency graphs and topological unfolding for self-contained search via natural language queries.