← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-srw.85 · 记录 #1
How Hard is Math? Using Quantitative Metrics to Measure LLM Alignment to Human Intuitions of Difficulty
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:44
摘要
Modern LLMs have demonstrated advanced reasoning skills, including the ability to solve Olympiad-level mathematics problems. While solving more and more difficult problems is a hallmark of LLM progress, less attention has been placed on how “difficulty” is operationalized in the context of LLM problem solving tasks. This is particularly relevant in educational contexts where teachers or students may ask LLMs for “easy” or “hard” questions. In this paper, we explore various quantitative measurements from LLM-generated solutions and evaluate their inter-correlations, as well as their correlation to human-annotated difficulty scores. We find moderate correlations between metrics using log probabilities and output lengths, including some that are more strongly correlated to difficulty than LLM accuracy. We also train ModernBERT to predict difficulty scores, leading to reasonable accuracy within a given benchmark, but decreased performance when generalizing to other math benchmarks. Finally, to explore connections between difficulty scores and human performance, we collect problems, human solutions, and human performance data from the Putnam competition. We find poor alignment between LLM metrics and human-assigned difficulty scores, despite strong correlations between those scores and human performance on the problems.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
How Hard is Math? Using Quantitative Metrics to Measure LLM Alignment to Human Intuitions of Difficulty
Modern LLMs have demonstrated advanced reasoning skills, including the ability to solve Olympiad-level mathematics problems. While solving more and more difficult problems is a hallmark of LLM progress, less attention has been placed on how “difficulty” is operationalized in the context of LLM problem solving tasks. This is particularly relevant in educational contexts where teachers or students may ask LLMs for “easy” or “hard” questions. In this paper, we explore various quantitative measurements from LLM-generated solutions and evaluate their inter-correlations, as well as their correlation to human-annotated difficulty scores. We find moderate correlations between metrics using log probabilities and output lengths, including some that are more strongly correlated to difficulty than LLM accuracy. We also train ModernBERT to predict difficulty scores, leading to reasonable accuracy within a given benchmark, but decreased performance when generalizing to other math benchmarks. Finally, to explore connections between difficulty scores and human performance, we collect problems, human solutions, and human performance data from the Putnam competition. We find poor alignment between LLM metrics and human-assigned difficulty scores, despite strong correlations between those scores and human performance on the problems.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗