CrowdMath: A Dataset of Crowdsourced Mathematical Research Discussions
arXiv AIArchived Jun 08, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.06526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have made substantial progress on mathematical reasoning, but existing benchmarks typically evaluate well-specified problems with final answers, step-by-step solutions, or complete proofs. They do not capture collaborative open-problem solving: a setting in which participants propose partial arguments, identify gaps or errors in prior steps, repair flawed reasoning, and gradually synthesize incremental contributions into a pro
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 2 Jun 2026]
CrowdMath: A Dataset of Crowdsourced Mathematical Research Discussions
Sherin Muckatira, Jesse Geneson, Slava Gerovitch, Pavel Etingof, Mikhail Gronas, Anna Rumshisky
Large language models have made substantial progress on mathematical reasoning, but existing benchmarks typically evaluate well-specified problems with final answers, step-by-step solutions, or complete proofs. They do not capture collaborative open-problem solving: a setting in which participants propose partial arguments, identify gaps or errors in prior steps, repair flawed reasoning, and gradually synthesize incremental contributions into a proof. We introduce CrowdMath, a dataset of 164 expert-annotated progress chains from the MIT PRIMES--Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) CrowdMath program (2016-2025), a collaborative research initiative whose discussions have led to peer-reviewed publications. Each chain traces a multi-participant forum discussion from an open-problem statement to a completed proof. Posts are labeled by their functional roles in the evolving solution process, including partial progress, proof completion, erroneous reasoning, and error identification. We define evaluation tasks and benchmark six frontier models. Models achieve 83-88% accuracy on next-post prediction, suggesting that they can follow the local flow of mathematical discussion. However, they struggle to identify the functional significance of individual contributions with the best model achieving only 0.42 macro-F1 on post-role classification. CrowdMath exposes a gap between solving well-specified mathematical problems and understanding collaborative mathematical progress as it unfolds.
Comments: 16 pages, 4 figures
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.06526 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.06526v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.06526
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Sherin Muckatira [view email]
[v1] Tue, 2 Jun 2026 20:38:39 UTC (1,074 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.LG
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)