Michael P. Brenner

Jingxuan Fan, Sarah Martinson, Erik Y. Wang et al.

Advanced applied mathematics problems are underrepresented in existing Large Language Model (LLM) benchmark datasets. To address this, we introduce HARDMath, a dataset inspired by a graduate course on asymptotic methods, featuring challenging applied mathematics problems that require analytical approximation techniques. These problems demand a combination of mathematical reasoning, computational tools, and subjective judgment, making them difficult for LLMs. Our framework auto-generates a large number of problems with solutions validated against numerical ground truths. We evaluate both open- and closed-source LLMs on HARDMath-mini, a sub-sampled test set of 366 problems, as well as on 40 word problems formulated in applied science contexts. Even leading closed-source models like GPT-4 achieve only 43.8% overall accuracy with few-shot Chain-of-Thought prompting, and all models demonstrate significantly lower performance compared to results on existing mathematics benchmark datasets. We additionally conduct a detailed error analysis to gain insights into the failure cases of LLMs. These results demonstrate limitations of current LLM performance on advanced graduate-level applied math problems and underscore the importance of datasets like HARDMath to advance mathematical abilities of LLMs.

Nicole N Khatibi, Daniil A. Radamovich, Michael P. Brenner

Recent breakthroughs have spurred claims that large language models (LLMs) match gold medal Olympiad to graduate level proficiency on mathematics benchmarks. In this work, we examine these claims in detail and assess the extent to which current benchmarks capture genuine LLM mathematical reasoning. The composition of these benchmarks, primarily drawing from the International Mathematics Olympiad (IMO) and related competitions, may overstate models reasoning ability due to potential data contamination and a narrow focus on familiar problem types. To enable a more holistic assessment of mathematical understanding, we introduce EEFSUVA, a novel benchmark curated from under circulated regional and national Olympiads of Eastern Europe and the countries from the former Soviet Union. These contests feature problems of comparable difficulty to the IMO and are renowned for demanding nonstandard problem-solving techniques, yet their problems are far less prevalent in online corpora. Preliminary results suggest that even state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit a notable performance decline on EEFSUVA relative to other Olympiad-style benchmarks. These findings also suggest the potential importance of broader evaluation datasets for a fuller assessment of mathematical reasoning and for guiding future model development.

James V. Roggeveen, Erik Y. Wang, Will Flintoft et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable progress in mathematical problem-solving, but evaluation has largely focused on problems that have exact analytical solutions or involve formal proofs, often overlooking approximation-based problems ubiquitous in applied science and engineering. To fill this gap, we build on prior work and present HARDMath2, a dataset of 211 original problems covering the core topics in an introductory graduate applied math class, including boundary-layer analysis, WKB methods, asymptotic solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations, and the asymptotics of oscillatory integrals. This dataset was designed and verified by the students and instructors of a core graduate applied mathematics course at Harvard. We build the dataset through a novel collaborative environment that challenges students to write and refine difficult problems consistent with the class syllabus, peer-validate solutions, test different models, and automatically check LLM-generated solutions against their own answers and numerical ground truths. Evaluation results show that leading frontier models still struggle with many of the problems in the dataset, highlighting a gap in the mathematical reasoning skills of current LLMs. Importantly, students identified strategies to create increasingly difficult problems by interacting with the models and exploiting common failure modes. This back-and-forth with the models not only resulted in a richer and more challenging benchmark but also led to qualitative improvements in the students' understanding of the course material, which is increasingly important as we enter an age where state-of-the-art language models can solve many challenging problems across a wide domain of fields.

Haining Pan, James V. Roggeveen, Erez Berg et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable progress in coding and math problem-solving, but evaluation on advanced research-level problems in hard sciences remains scarce. To fill this gap, we present CMT-Benchmark, a dataset of 50 problems covering condensed matter theory (CMT) at the level of an expert researcher. Topics span analytical and computational approaches in quantum many-body, and classical statistical mechanics. The dataset was designed and verified by a panel of expert researchers from around the world. We built the dataset through a collaborative environment that challenges the panel to write and refine problems they would want a research assistant to solve, including Hartree-Fock, exact diagonalization, quantum/variational Monte Carlo, density matrix renormalization group (DMRG), quantum/classical statistical mechanics, and model building. We evaluate LLMs by programmatically checking solutions against expert-supplied ground truth. We developed machine-grading, including symbolic handling of non-commuting operators via normal ordering. They generalize across tasks too. Our evaluations show that frontier models struggle with all of the problems in the dataset, highlighting a gap in the physical reasoning skills of current LLMs. Notably, experts identified strategies for creating increasingly difficult problems by interacting with the LLMs and exploiting common failure modes. The best model, GPT5, solves 30\% of the problems; average across 17 models (GPT, Gemini, Claude, DeepSeek, Llama) is 11.4$\pm$2.1\%. Moreover, 18 problems are solved by none of the 17 models, and 26 by at most one. These unsolved problems span Quantum Monte Carlo, Variational Monte Carlo, and DMRG. Answers sometimes violate fundamental symmetries or have unphysical scaling dimensions. We believe this benchmark will guide development toward capable AI research assistants and tutors.