MATH Benchmark
BenchmarkFree12.5K competition math problems — AMC/AIME/Olympiad level, 7 subjects, standard math benchmark.
Capabilities11 decomposed
competition-mathematics problem dataset loading with multi-subject stratification
Medium confidenceLoads and preprocesses 12,500 curated competition mathematics problems from AMC 10/12, AIME, and Math Olympiads using the MATHDataset class in MATH.py. The loader supports multiple tokenization strategies and can selectively include or exclude solution steps during preprocessing, enabling researchers to evaluate models on problem-solving without solution hints. Problems are stratified across 7 mathematical subjects (Prealgebra, Algebra, Number Theory, Counting/Probability, Geometry, Intermediate Algebra, Precalculus) with structured JSON metadata including problem statements, solutions, and difficulty levels.
Curates problems exclusively from high-difficulty mathematical competitions (AMC, AIME, Olympiads) rather than generic math word problems, ensuring evaluation on reasoning-intensive problems that require multi-step derivations and deep mathematical understanding. The MATHDataset class implements subject-aware stratification enabling fine-grained evaluation across mathematical domains.
More rigorous than generic math QA datasets (e.g., MathQA, SVAMP) because problems require genuine mathematical reasoning rather than simple arithmetic, making it the de facto standard for evaluating LLM mathematical capabilities in research.
mathematical equivalence checking with latex normalization and algebraic simplification
Medium confidenceImplements the is_equiv() function in math_equivalence.py that determines semantic equivalence between two mathematical expressions regardless of syntactic representation. The system applies a multi-stage normalization pipeline that handles LaTeX formatting, fraction representations, algebraic simplification, and numerical precision issues before performing string-based comparison. This enables accurate answer verification without requiring exact string matching, accommodating equivalent forms like '1/2', '0.5', and '\frac{1}{2}'.
Implements a multi-stage normalization pipeline specifically designed for competition mathematics rather than generic string comparison. The system handles domain-specific challenges like multiple valid representations of the same answer (fractions vs decimals, different LaTeX encodings) and applies algebraic simplification to catch mathematically equivalent but syntactically different forms.
More robust than exact string matching or simple numerical comparison because it normalizes across multiple mathematical notations and handles algebraic equivalence, enabling accurate evaluation of LLM answers that are mathematically correct but expressed differently than ground truth.
solution step extraction and intermediate reasoning evaluation
Medium confidenceExtracts and preserves solution steps from MATH problems, enabling evaluation of intermediate reasoning and chain-of-thought capabilities. The system can optionally include or exclude solution steps during dataset loading, supporting different evaluation methodologies: evaluating final answers only (without hints) or evaluating intermediate reasoning steps. This enables researchers to assess whether models can generate correct reasoning chains or merely guess final answers.
Preserves solution steps as first-class data throughout the evaluation pipeline, enabling evaluation of intermediate reasoning quality rather than just final answers. This supports emerging research on chain-of-thought prompting and interpretable AI reasoning.
More comprehensive than final-answer-only evaluation because it assesses reasoning quality and interpretability, but requires more manual annotation and is harder to automate than simple answer verification.
local gpt-style model evaluation with configurable beam search and sampling
Medium confidenceProvides evaluation infrastructure in eval_math_gpt.py that runs local language models (GPT-style architectures) on MATH dataset problems with configurable inference parameters including beam search width, sampling temperature, and top-k/top-p filtering. The run_eval() function orchestrates the evaluation pipeline: loads problems from MATHDataset, generates model responses with specified decoding strategy, extracts final answers from model outputs, and compares against ground truth using mathematical equivalence checking. Supports both greedy decoding and stochastic sampling for exploring model behavior under different inference regimes.
Integrates configurable beam search and sampling directly into the evaluation loop, enabling researchers to explore how different decoding strategies affect mathematical reasoning performance. The architecture separates inference configuration from evaluation logic, allowing systematic comparison of greedy vs stochastic decoding on the same problem set.
More flexible than API-based evaluation (e.g., OpenAI GPT-3 API) because it supports arbitrary inference parameters and local model variants, but requires more computational resources and manual infrastructure setup compared to cloud-based alternatives.
openai gpt-3 api-based model evaluation with remote inference
Medium confidenceProvides evaluation infrastructure in evaluate_gpt3.py that interfaces with OpenAI's GPT-3 API for remote model evaluation on MATH problems. The system handles API authentication, batches problem submissions to the GPT-3 API, parses structured responses, and aggregates accuracy metrics. This enables evaluation of closed-source models without local compute resources, though with latency and cost considerations inherent to API-based inference.
Abstracts away OpenAI API complexity by providing a unified evaluation interface that handles authentication, batching, response parsing, and error handling. The system integrates seamlessly with the local evaluation pipeline, enabling side-by-side comparison of API-based and local models using identical evaluation metrics.
Simpler than local evaluation for closed-source models because it eliminates infrastructure setup, but introduces API dependency, latency, and cost overhead compared to local inference on open-source models.
subject-stratified accuracy metrics aggregation and reporting
Medium confidenceAggregates evaluation results across the 12,500 problems and computes accuracy metrics stratified by mathematical subject (Prealgebra, Algebra, Number Theory, Counting/Probability, Geometry, Intermediate Algebra, Precalculus). The reporting system generates per-subject accuracy percentages, overall accuracy, and optional per-difficulty breakdowns. This enables fine-grained analysis of model strengths and weaknesses across mathematical domains, revealing whether models struggle with specific subject areas.
Implements subject-aware stratification that breaks down accuracy by mathematical domain, revealing whether models have domain-specific weaknesses (e.g., strong on Algebra but weak on Geometry). This granularity is essential for understanding model capabilities beyond aggregate accuracy.
More informative than single aggregate accuracy metric because subject-stratified results expose domain-specific model limitations, enabling targeted improvement efforts and more nuanced model comparison.
problem metadata extraction and structured indexing
Medium confidenceExtracts and indexes structured metadata from MATH dataset JSON files including problem statement, solution steps, final answer, difficulty level, and mathematical subject. The indexing system enables efficient retrieval of problems by subject, difficulty, or other attributes, and provides structured access to problem components (problem text vs solution vs answer) for different evaluation workflows. Metadata is preserved throughout the evaluation pipeline to enable stratified analysis and filtering.
Preserves full problem metadata (subject, difficulty, solution steps) throughout the evaluation pipeline, enabling post-hoc analysis of which problem characteristics correlate with model success or failure. The indexing structure supports efficient filtering and stratified evaluation.
More structured than raw problem files because metadata is parsed and indexed, enabling efficient filtering and analysis; but less flexible than custom metadata systems that could include additional annotations (e.g., required mathematical concepts, solution techniques).
answer extraction from model outputs with heuristic parsing
Medium confidenceExtracts final numerical or symbolic answers from model-generated text using heuristic pattern matching (e.g., regex patterns for 'Answer: X', 'Final Answer:', or boxed notation). The extraction system handles common answer formats including integers, fractions, decimals, and algebraic expressions. This enables automatic answer verification without requiring models to output structured JSON or follow strict formatting conventions, accommodating natural language model outputs.
Uses lightweight regex-based heuristics rather than requiring models to output structured JSON, enabling evaluation of base language models without answer format fine-tuning. This pragmatic approach trades robustness for flexibility, accommodating diverse model output styles.
More flexible than requiring structured output because it works with any model without fine-tuning, but less reliable than models trained to output answers in standardized formats (e.g., JSON with 'answer' field).
dataset download and curation from competition sources
Medium confidenceCurates and distributes the MATH dataset of 12,500 problems sourced from official mathematical competitions (AMC 10, AMC 12, AIME, and Math Olympiads). Problems are manually collected, verified for correctness, and formatted into standardized JSON structure with problem statement, solution, and metadata. The dataset is hosted on Berkeley servers and distributed via GitHub repository, enabling researchers to access high-quality competition mathematics problems for benchmarking.
Curates problems exclusively from official mathematical competitions (AMC, AIME, Olympiads) rather than synthetic or crowd-sourced problems, ensuring high quality and genuine mathematical reasoning requirements. Manual curation and verification provide confidence in problem correctness and difficulty calibration.
More rigorous than generic math QA datasets because problems are sourced from official competitions with established difficulty standards, making MATH the de facto benchmark for evaluating LLM mathematical reasoning in research.
problem difficulty level annotation and stratification
Medium confidenceAnnotates each MATH problem with a difficulty level (easy, medium, hard) based on competition source and problem characteristics. The stratification system enables evaluation of model performance across difficulty tiers, revealing whether models struggle more with harder problems or show consistent performance. Difficulty annotations are preserved in problem metadata and used for stratified accuracy reporting.
Provides difficulty stratification based on official competition sources (AMC 10 is easier than AIME which is harder than Olympiad), enabling researchers to analyze whether models scale their reasoning capabilities with problem difficulty. This reveals whether models have robust reasoning or merely memorized easy problem patterns.
More principled than arbitrary difficulty scoring because it leverages established competition hierarchies, but less precise than learned difficulty metrics based on empirical model performance data.
amps pretraining dataset integration for model training
Medium confidenceProvides access to the AMPS (Algebraic Mathematical Problem Solving) pretraining dataset, a large-scale collection of mathematical problems designed for pretraining language models on mathematical reasoning. The integration enables researchers to use AMPS for model pretraining and then evaluate the pretrained models on MATH benchmark, creating a complete pipeline from pretraining to evaluation. AMPS dataset is hosted on Google servers and can be downloaded separately from MATH.
Provides a companion pretraining dataset (AMPS) that enables researchers to study the impact of mathematical pretraining on downstream reasoning capabilities. The two-stage pipeline (AMPS pretraining → MATH evaluation) enables controlled experiments on mathematical reasoning development.
Enables more rigorous evaluation of mathematical reasoning by separating pretraining from evaluation, reducing risk of data leakage and enabling fair comparison of models trained with vs without mathematical pretraining.
Capabilities are decomposed by AI analysis. Each maps to specific user intents and improves with match feedback.
Related Artifactssharing capabilities
Artifacts that share capabilities with MATH Benchmark, ranked by overlap. Discovered automatically through the match graph.
MATH
12.5K competition math problems across 7 subjects and 5 difficulty levels.
GSM8K
8.5K grade school math problems — multi-step reasoning, verifiable solutions, reasoning benchmark.
gsm8k
Dataset by openai. 8,78,005 downloads.
o3-mini
Cost-efficient reasoning model with configurable effort levels.
OpenAI: o3 Pro
The o-series of models are trained with reinforcement learning to think before they answer and perform complex reasoning. The o3-pro model uses more compute to think harder and provide consistently...
Homeworkify.im
AI-powered platform offering instant, accurate, multi-format homework...
Best For
- ✓AI researchers benchmarking language model mathematical reasoning
- ✓Teams evaluating LLM performance on competition-level mathematics
- ✓Developers building math-focused AI systems requiring standardized evaluation
- ✓Researchers evaluating LLM mathematical reasoning on competition problems
- ✓Systems requiring robust answer verification for math problems across multiple notations
- ✓Teams building automated grading systems for mathematical content
- ✓Researchers studying chain-of-thought reasoning in language models
- ✓Teams evaluating reasoning quality beyond final answer correctness
Known Limitations
- ⚠Dataset is static and fixed at 12,500 problems — no dynamic problem generation or augmentation
- ⚠Requires manual download from Berkeley server; not automatically provisioned via package manager
- ⚠Problems are English-language only; no multilingual variants
- ⚠Subject distribution may not reflect real-world problem frequencies in mathematical competitions
- ⚠Normalization pipeline may not handle all edge cases in advanced mathematics (e.g., complex numbers, symbolic expressions with multiple variables)
- ⚠Numerical precision comparison uses fixed epsilon thresholds that may not adapt to problem-specific requirements
Requirements
Input / Output
UnfragileRank
UnfragileRank is computed from adoption signals, documentation quality, ecosystem connectivity, match graph feedback, and freshness. No artifact can pay for a higher rank.
About
12,500 challenging competition mathematics problems from AMC, AIME, and Math Olympiads. Tests mathematical reasoning across 7 subjects. Problems range from algebra to number theory. Standard math reasoning benchmark.
Categories
Alternatives to MATH Benchmark
Are you the builder of MATH Benchmark?
Claim this artifact to get a verified badge, access match analytics, see which intents users search for, and manage your listing.
Get the weekly brief
New tools, rising stars, and what's actually worth your time. No spam.
Data Sources
Looking for something else?
Search →