Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces RealMath-Eval, a benchmark designed to assess the ability of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) to evaluate real human reasoning in high-school mathematics. The study reveals that these LLM judges exhibit a significant evaluation gap, performing poorly on authentic student responses compared to their performance on synthetic solutions, with a Mean Squared Error of approximately 2.96 versus 1.17. The findings indicate that current LLM evaluation methods, which predominantly utilize synthetic data, fail to account for the complexity and diversity of genuine human reasoning processes in mathematics.
LLMs struggle to accurately evaluate real human reasoning in mathematics, revealing a critical evaluation gap that challenges current assessment methods.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in \emph{solving} high-school mathematics, their ability to \emph{evaluate} the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{RealMath-Eval}, a rigorously annotated benchmark of 224 real-world exam responses from high schools. Our initial evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art LLM judges struggle significantly on this task, exhibiting a high Mean Squared Error ($\sim$2.96) against expert human grading. To probe a plausible explanation, we contrast this performance with a control setting where the same judges evaluate synthetic LLM-generated solutions. We identify a stark ``Evaluation Gap'': judges are considerably more accurate and consistent on synthetic text (MSE $\sim$1.17) but struggle to generalize to authentic student reasoning. Through semantic embedding analysis, we find that synthetic errors suffer from a ``structural collapse'' into predictable, low-dimensional linear subspaces, whereas human errors form a more diverse error space. Furthermore, generative probability probes suggest that human reasoning involves significantly higher information-theoretic surprisal, indicating that student reasoning transitions are more out-of-distribution for current models. Finally, we find that surface-level style transfer fails to close this gap. Our findings suggest that current LLM evaluation pipelines relying heavily on synthetic data may not adequately capture the diversity of authentic student mathematical reasoning.
