Prompt Perturbation for Reliable LLM Evaluation over Comparison Graphs

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is important for understanding their capabilities, comparing competing systems, and supporting the deployment of reliable models in practice. For open-ended tasks, pairwise evaluation has become a popular paradigm, in which two responses to the same prompt are compared and the resulting judgments are aggregated into an overall ranking. A central challenge of this paradigm is intransitivity: the induced comparison outcomes may fail to support any coherent global ranking. For example, one may observe cyclic preferences such as $A \succ B \succ C \succ A$, or inconsistencies involving ties such as $A \equiv B\equiv C\neq A$. Such contradictions make the resulting leaderboard unstable and challenging to interpret. In this paper, we propose a prompt perturbation framework for improving the consistency of pairwise LLM evaluation. Our approach generates perturbed variants of each prompt, uses the resulting comparison graphs to identify and filter out structurally inconsistent comparison patterns, and then applies standard ranking methods to the filtered comparisons. A key feature of the proposed framework is that graph-level structural consistency is incorporated explicitly into the evaluation pipeline before ranking aggregation. This provides a simple and principled way to reduce cyclic inconsistencies and improve the reliability of LLM rankings.

DeepMath-Creative: A Benchmark for Evaluating Mathematical Creativity of Large Language Models

To advance the mathematical proficiency of large language models (LLMs), the DeepMath team has launched an open-source initiative aimed at developing an open mathematical LLM and systematically evaluating its mathematical creativity. This paper represents the initial contribution of this initiative. While recent developments in mathematical LLMs have predominantly emphasized reasoning skills, as evidenced by benchmarks on elementary to undergraduate-level mathematical tasks, the creative capabilities of these models have received comparatively little attention, and evaluation datasets remain scarce. To address this gap, we propose an evaluation criteria for mathematical creativity and introduce DeepMath-Creative, a novel, high-quality benchmark comprising constructive problems across algebra, geometry, analysis, and other domains. We conduct a systematic evaluation of mainstream LLMs' creative problem-solving abilities using this dataset. Experimental results show that even under lenient scoring criteria -- emphasizing core solution components and disregarding minor inaccuracies, such as small logical gaps, incomplete justifications, or redundant explanations -- the best-performing model, O3 Mini, achieves merely 70% accuracy, primarily on basic undergraduate-level constructive tasks. Performance declines sharply on more complex problems, with models failing to provide substantive strategies for open problems. These findings suggest that, although current LLMs display a degree of constructive proficiency on familiar and lower-difficulty problems, such performance is likely attributable to the recombination of memorized patterns rather than authentic creative insight or novel synthesis.