Majid Daliri

Hamed Mahdavi, Pouria Mahdavinia, Alireza Farhadi et al.

State-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs have progressed from struggling on proof-based Olympiad problems to solving most of the IMO 2025 problems, with leading systems reportedly handling 5 of 6 problems. Given this progress, we assess how well these models can grade proofs: detecting errors, judging their severity, and assigning fair scores beyond binary correctness. We study proof-analysis capabilities using a corpus of 90 Gemini 2.5 Pro-generated solutions that we grade on a 1-4 scale with detailed error annotations, and on MathArena solution sets for IMO/USAMO 2025 scored on a 0-7 scale. Our analysis shows that models can reliably flag incorrect (including subtly incorrect) solutions but exhibit calibration gaps in how partial credit is assigned. To address this, we introduce agentic workflows that extract and analyze reference solutions and automatically derive problem-specific rubrics for a multi-step grading process. We instantiate and compare different design choices for the grading workflows, and evaluate their trade-offs. Across our annotated corpus and MathArena, our proposed workflows achieve higher agreement with human grades and more consistent handling of partial credit across metrics. We release all code, data, and prompts/logs to facilitate future research.

Ali Behrouz, Zeman Li, Praneeth Kacham et al.

Transformers have been established as the most popular backbones in sequence modeling, mainly due to their effectiveness in in-context retrieval tasks and the ability to learn at scale. Their quadratic memory and time complexity, however, bound their applicability in longer sequences and so has motivated researchers to explore effective alternative architectures such as modern recurrent neural networks (a.k.a long-term recurrent memory module). Despite their recent success in diverse downstream tasks, they struggle in tasks that requires long context understanding and extrapolation to longer sequences. We observe that these shortcomings come from three disjoint aspects in their design: (1) limited memory capacity that is bounded by the architecture of memory and feature mapping of the input; (2) online nature of update, i.e., optimizing the memory only with respect to the last input; and (3) less expressive management of their fixed-size memory. To enhance all these three aspects, we present ATLAS, a long-term memory module with high capacity that learns to memorize the context by optimizing the memory based on the current and past tokens, overcoming the online nature of long-term memory models. Building on this insight, we present a new family of Transformer-like architectures, called DeepTransformers, that are strict generalizations of the original Transformer architecture. Our experimental results on language modeling, common-sense reasoning, recall-intensive, and long-context understanding tasks show that ATLAS surpasses the performance of Transformers and recent linear recurrent models. ATLAS further improves the long context performance of Titans, achieving +80\% accuracy in 10M context length of BABILong benchmark.

Hamed Mahdavi, Alireza Hashemi, Majid Daliri et al.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive progress in mathematical reasoning tasks. However, current evaluation benchmarks predominantly focus on the accuracy of final answers, often overlooking the crucial logical rigor for mathematical problem solving. The claim that state-of-the-art LLMs can solve Math Olympiad-level problems requires closer examination. To explore this, we conducted both qualitative and quantitative human evaluations of proofs generated by LLMs, and developed a schema for automatically assessing their reasoning capabilities. Our study reveals that current LLMs fall significantly short of solving challenging Olympiad-level problems and frequently fail to distinguish correct mathematical reasoning from clearly flawed solutions. Our analyses demonstrate that the occasional correct final answers provided by LLMs often result from pattern recognition or heuristic shortcuts rather than genuine mathematical reasoning. These findings underscore the substantial gap between LLM performance and human expertise in advanced mathematical reasoning and highlight the importance of developing benchmarks that prioritize the soundness of the reasoning used to arrive at an answer rather than the mere correctness of the final answers.

Hamed Mahdavi, Pouria Mahdavinia, Samira Malek et al.

State-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs have progressed from struggling on proof-based Olympiad problems to solving most of the IMO 2025 problems, with leading systems reportedly handling 5 of 6 problems. Given this progress, we assess how well these models can grade proofs: detecting errors, judging their severity, and assigning fair scores beyond binary correctness. We study proof-analysis capabilities using a corpus of 90 Gemini 2.5 Pro-generated solutions that we grade on a 1-4 scale with detailed error annotations, and on MathArena solution sets for IMO/USAMO 2025 scored on a 0-7 scale. Our analysis shows that models can reliably flag incorrect (including subtly incorrect) solutions but exhibit calibration gaps in how partial credit is assigned. To address this, we introduce agentic workflows that extract and analyze reference solutions and automatically derive problem-specific rubrics for a multi-step grading process. We instantiate and compare different design choices for the grading workflows, and evaluate their trade-offs. Across our annotated corpus and MathArena, our proposed workflows achieve higher agreement with human grades and more consistent handling of partial credit across metrics. We release all code, data, and prompts/logs to facilitate future research.