MathQA
Models answer multiple-choice math word problems drawn from AQuA. Each problem is annotated with an operation program. Scored by accuracy.
Models are often scored by log-likelihood over the options in lm-evaluation-harness.
In the authors’ words
We introduce a large-scale dataset of math word problems and an interpretable neural math problem solver that learns to map problems to operation programs. Due to annotation challenges, current datasets in this domain have been either relatively small in scale or did not offer precise operational annotations over diverse problem types. We introduce a new representation language to model precise operation programs corresponding to each math problem that aim to improve both the performance and the interpretability of the learned models. Using this representation language, our new dataset, MathQA, significantly enhances the AQuA dataset with fully-specified operational programs. We additionally introduce a neural sequence-to-program model enhanced with automatic problem categorization. Our experiments show improvements over competitive baselines in our MathQA as well as the AQuA dataset. The results are still significantly lower than human performance indicating that the dataset poses new challenges for future research. Our dataset is available at: https://math-qa.github.io/math-QA/
- Level
- School Students, from grade school to high school
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Apertus 70B leads with 33.9%
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
Apertus 70B 33.9%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 33.9% | Sep 2025 | Model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 Sep 2025 | | 33.9 | MathQA (Table 18) | Capabilities |
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%