Tensor Probabilistic Model Checking of Finite-Horizon Markov Chains (Extended Version)

We reexamine the problem of verifying Markov chains with respect to step-bounded reachability probabilities. Prevailing approaches rely on encoding the state-transition matrix using either explicit or symbolic representations. While these approaches are effective for sparse transition dynamics, they scale less favorably in the dense regime. Our insight is to cast probabilistic model checking of Markov chains as computations over dense tensors. This methodology enables the use of off-the-shelf compiler toolchains for optimized execution of these tensor computations on hardware accelerators. We prove the soundness of the methodology of mapping probabilistic model checking to tensor computations. We implement our approach in a tool called Tessa . Empirical evaluation shows that Tessa unlocks massive speedups over state-of-theart methods on selected benchmarks from the literature.

QEDBENCH: Quantifying the Alignment Gap in Automated Evaluation of University-Level Mathematical Proofs

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.