Abstract:The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to significant breakthroughs in automated mathematical reasoning and scientific discovery. Georgiev, G${ó}$mez-Serrano, Tao, and Wagner [GGSTW+25] demonstrate that AI systems can explore new constructions and improve existing bounds, illustrating the growing potential of LLMs to accelerate mathematical discovery. Similarly, Bubeck et al. [BCE+25] show that GPT-5 can meaningfully contribute to scientific workflows, from proposing hypotheses to generating proofs and analyses. Despite these advances, a rigorous evaluation of these models on canonical, graduate-level mathematical theory remains necessary to understand their baseline reasoning capabilities. In th…
Abstract:The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to significant breakthroughs in automated mathematical reasoning and scientific discovery. Georgiev, G${ó}$mez-Serrano, Tao, and Wagner [GGSTW+25] demonstrate that AI systems can explore new constructions and improve existing bounds, illustrating the growing potential of LLMs to accelerate mathematical discovery. Similarly, Bubeck et al. [BCE+25] show that GPT-5 can meaningfully contribute to scientific workflows, from proposing hypotheses to generating proofs and analyses. Despite these advances, a rigorous evaluation of these models on canonical, graduate-level mathematical theory remains necessary to understand their baseline reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we present a comprehensive benchmark of four frontier models: GPT-5-Thinking, Gemini-3-Pro, Claude-Sonnet-4.5-Thinking, and Grok-4 against the classic curriculum of Randomized Algorithms by Motwani and Raghavan [MR95]. We tasked each model with generating formal LaTeX proofs for a series of lemmas and exercises spanning the textbook. We find that while the top-tier models (Gemini, and Claude) achieve a high accuracy rate (approx. 66%), demonstrating a robust grasp of probabilistic method and formal logic, other models lag significantly in consistency (approx. 40%). We provide a qualitative analysis of the generated proofs, highlighting differences in conciseness, hallucination rates, and logical structure. Our results suggest that while frontier models have reached a threshold of proficiency suitable for graduate-level pedagogical assistance and formalization, significant variance exists in their reliability for rigorous mathematical derivation. The code and the full set of LLM-generated responses are open-sourced and publicly available at this https URL.
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2512.13978 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2512.13978v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.13978 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Yang Cao [view email] [v1] Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:34:55 UTC (757 KB)