Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
QEDBench, a new benchmark, is introduced to quantify the alignment gap between LLM-as-a-Judge protocols and human expert evaluations of university-level math proofs. The benchmark uses a dual-rubric approach, contrasting course-specific rubrics with expert common knowledge criteria, and extensive human evaluation (7 judges x 5 solvers). Results show that frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5 and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias, and that reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 experience performance degradation in discrete math and graph theory.
LLM judges inflate math proof scores by up to 0.36 points, revealing a significant alignment gap with human experts and a reasoning breakdown in discrete domains.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard"LLM-as-a-Judge"protocols suffer from a systematic Alignment Gap when applied to upper-undergraduate to early graduate level mathematics. To quantify this, we introduce QEDBench, the first large-scale dual-rubric alignment benchmark to systematically measure alignment with human experts on university-level math proofs by contrasting course-specific rubrics against expert common knowledge criteria. By deploying a dual-evaluation matrix (7 judges x 5 solvers) against 1,000+ hours of human evaluation, we reveal that certain frontier evaluators like Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3, Qwen 2.5 Max, and Llama 4 Maverick exhibit significant positive bias (up to +0.18, +0.20, +0.30, +0.36 mean score inflation, respectively). Furthermore, we uncover a critical reasoning gap in the discrete domain: while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves state-of-the-art performance (0.91 average human evaluation score), other reasoning models like GPT-5 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5 see their performance significantly degrade in discrete domains. Specifically, their average human evaluation scores drop to 0.72 and 0.63 in Discrete Math, and to 0.74 and 0.50 in Graph Theory. In addition to these research results, we also release QEDBench as a public benchmark for evaluating and improving AI judges. Our benchmark is publicly published at https://github.com/qqliu/Yale-QEDBench.