Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The authors introduce Principia, a new benchmark suite for evaluating LLMs' ability to derive mathematical objects, addressing the limitations of existing benchmarks that rely on simplified answer formats. They demonstrate that on-policy reward modeling with LLM judges and verifiers significantly improves performance on Principia and generalizes to existing numerical and multiple-choice question answering tasks. Furthermore, they show that on-policy training enables effective scaling of test-time compute through aggregation, leading to substantial gains.
On-policy reward modeling with LLM judges not only unlocks significant performance gains on complex mathematical reasoning tasks, but also generalizes to improve performance on simpler numerical and multiple-choice benchmarks.
The ability to precisely derive mathematical objects is a core requirement for downstream STEM applications, including mathematics, physics, and chemistry, where reasoning must culminate in formally structured expressions. Yet, current LM evaluations of mathematical and scientific reasoning rely heavily on simplified answer formats such as numerical values or multiple choice options due to the convenience of automated assessment. In this paper we provide three contributions for improving reasoning over mathematical objects: (i) we build and release training data and benchmarks for deriving mathematical objects, the Principia suite; (ii) we provide training recipes with strong LLM-judges and verifiers, where we show that on-policy judge training boosts performance; (iii) we show how on-policy training can also be used to scale test-time compute via aggregation. We find that strong LMs such as Qwen3-235B and o3 struggle on Principia, while our training recipes can bring significant improvements over different LLM backbones, while simultaneously improving results on existing numerical and MCQA tasks, demonstrating cross-format generalization of reasoning abilities.
CMU ML
Meta AI