AdvancedMathBench
Models write proofs for 245 advanced problems at undergraduate and doctoral qualifying exam levels. A verifier trained on expert annotations grades each proof.
Its generation benchmark is ProverBench, with Undergraduate and Doctoral QE levels. InternLM released the verifier as AdvancedMathBench-AutoVerifier on Hugging Face.
In the authors’ words
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and competition-level mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed. To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs on advanced mathematical proofs. Its core generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 245 problems spanning undergraduate (UG) and doctoral qualifying-exam (QE) levels. To reliably evaluate these proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline that is trained on large-scale expert annotations, produces both correctness verdicts and fine-grained analyses, and exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories. We further introduce VerifierBench, consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales. Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models. On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 64.5 and 48.9 on the UG and QE splits, respectively. On proof verification, the best model only attains a Balanced F1 of 65.1. Further analysis reveals a notable mismatch between proof generation and verification capabilities across models.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Written proof
Intern-S2-397B leads with 58.1%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1
Intern-S2-397B 58.1%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 58.1% | Sep 2026 | Model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 Sep 2026 | 58.1 | Undergraduate 58.10 (Doctoral QE pass@4 67.00) |
More in Math
- IMO-AnswerBench In use 400 olympiad problems with short verifiable answers, robustified against memorization. Scored by answer match. GLM-5.2 91%
- AIME 2026 In use Models solve the 30 integer-answer problems from the 2026 AIME I and II math competitions. Scored by exact answer match. GPT-5.5 100%
- HMMT 2026 In use Models solve the 33 final-answer problems from the February 2026 Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament. Scored by exact answer match. GPT-5.5 98.5%
- MathArena (Apex, IMO, USAMO) In use Evaluates models on newly released math competitions after release. Final-answer or human/LLM-judged proof scores. Claude Opus 4.8 81.3%
- PolyMath In use Models solve 9,000 parallel math problems in 18 languages across four difficulty levels, from school math to frontier math. Final answers are checked.
Qwen3.7-Max 86.5%
- USAMO 2026 In use Models write full proofs for the six problems of the 2026 USA Mathematical Olympiad. Judges grade each proof from 0 to 7 against rubrics. GPT-5.5 98.2%