Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in data-rich domains such as programming, but their reliability in engineering tasks remains limited. Circuit analysis -- requiring multimodal understanding and precise mathematical reasoning -- highlights these challenges. Although Gemini 2.5 Pro improves diagram interpretation and analog-circuit reasoning, it still struggles to consistently produce correct solutions when given both text and circuit diagrams. At the same time, engineering education needs scalable AI tools capable of generating accurate solutions for tasks such as automated homework feedback and question-answering. This paper presents an enhanced, end-to-end circuit problem solver built on Gemini 2.5 Pro. We first benchmark Gemini on a representative set of undergraduate circuit problems and identify two major failure modes: 1) circuit-recognition hallucinations, particularly incorrect source polarity detection, and 2) reasoning-process hallucinations, such as incorrect current directions. To address recognition errors, we integrate a fine-tuned YOLO detector and OpenCV processing to isolate voltage and current sources, enabling Gemini to re-identify source polarities from cropped images with near-perfect accuracy. To reduce reasoning errors, we introduce an ngspice-based verification loop in which Gemini generates a .cir file, ngspice simulates the circuit, and discrepancies trigger iterative regeneration with optional human-in-the-loop review. Across 83 problems, the proposed pipeline achieves a 97.59% success rate (81 correct solutions), substantially outperforming Gemini 2.5 Pro's original 79.52% accuracy. This system extends LLM capabilities for multimodal engineering problem-solving and supports the creation of high-quality educational datasets and AI-powered instructional tools.

With the increasing reliance on LLMs as research agents, distinguishing between LLM and human-generated ideas has become crucial for understanding the cognitive nuances of LLMs' research capabilities. While detecting LLM-generated text has been extensively studied, distinguishing human vs LLM-generated scientific idea remains an unexplored area. In this work, we systematically evaluate the ability of state-of-the-art (SOTA) machine learning models to differentiate between human and LLM-generated ideas, particularly after successive paraphrasing stages. Our findings highlight the challenges SOTA models face in source attribution, with detection performance declining by an average of 25.4\% after five consecutive paraphrasing stages. Additionally, we demonstrate that incorporating the research problem as contextual information improves detection performance by up to 2.97%. Notably, our analysis reveals that detection algorithms struggle significantly when ideas are paraphrased into a simplified, non-expert style, contributing the most to the erosion of distinguishable LLM signatures.

The creative potential of computers has intrigued researchers for decades. Since the emergence of Generative AI (Gen AI), computer creativity has found many new dimensions and applications. As Gen AI permeates mainstream discourse and usage, researchers are delving into how it can improve and complement what humans do. Creative potential is a highly relevant notion to design practice and research, especially in the initial stages of ideation and conceptualisation. There is scope to improve creative potential in these stages, especially using machine intelligence. We propose a structured ideation session involving inspirational stimuli and utilise Gen AI in delivering this structure to designers through ALIA: Analogical LLM Ideation Agent, a tool for small-group ideation scenarios. The tool is developed by enabling speech based interactions with a Large Language Model (LLM) for inference generation. Inspiration is drawn from the synectic ideation method and the dialectics philosophy to design the optimal stimuli in group ideation. The tool is tested in design ideation sessions to compare the output of the AI-assisted ideation sessions to that of tradi tional ideation sessions. Preliminary findings showcase that participants have rated their ideas better when assisted by ALIA and respond favourably to speech-based interactions.

We introduce SWE-Bench Pro, a substantially more challenging benchmark that builds upon the best practices of SWE-BENCH [25], but is explicitly designed to capture realistic, complex, enterprise-level problems beyond the scope of SWE-BENCH. SWE-BENCH PRO contains 1,865 problems sourced from a diverse set of 41 actively maintained repositories spanning business applications, B2B services, and developer tools. The benchmark is partitioned into a public set with open access to problems sourced from 11 repositories, a held-out set of 12 repositories and a commercial set of 18 proprietary repositories where we have formal partnership agreements with early-stage startups. Problems in the held-out and the commercial set are not publicly accessible, but we release results on the commercial set. Our benchmark features long-horizon tasks that may require hours to days for a professional software engineer to complete, often involving patches across multiple files and substantial code modifications. All tasks are human-verified and augmented with sufficient context to ensure resolvability. To better understand these limitations, we cluster the failure modes observed in the collected agent trajectories for a clearer characterization of the error patterns exhibited by current models. Overall, SWE-BENCH PRO provides a contamination-resistant testbed that more faithfully captures the complexity and diversity of real-world software development, advancing the pursuit of truly autonomous software engineering agents at a professional level.

The ability to compute reward-optimal policies for given and known finite Markov decision processes (MDPs) underpins a variety of applications across planning, controller synthesis, and verification. However, we often want policies (1) to be robust, i.e., they perform well on perturbations of the MDP and (2) to satisfy additional structural constraints regarding, e.g., their representation or implementation cost. Computing such robust and constrained policies is indeed computationally more challenging. This paper contributes the first approach to effectively compute robust policies subject to arbitrary structural constraints using a flexible and efficient framework. We achieve flexibility by allowing to express our constraints in a first-order theory over a set of MDPs, while the root for our efficiency lies in the tight integration of satisfi-ability solvers to handle the combinatorial nature of the problem and probabilistic model checking algorithms to handle the analysis of MDPs. Experiments on a few hundred benchmarks demonstrate the feasibility for constrained and robust policy synthesis and the competitiveness with state-of-the-art methods for various fragments of the problem.

The evolution of mathematics has been guided in part by interestingness. From researchers choosing which problems to tackle next, to students deciding which ones to engage with, people's choices are often guided by judgments about how interesting or challenging problems are likely to be. As AI systems, such as LLMs, increasingly participate in mathematics with people -- whether for advanced research or education -- it becomes important to understand how well their judgments align with human ones. Our work examines this alignment through two empirical studies of human and LLM assessment of mathematical interestingness and difficulty, spanning a range of mathematical experience. We study two groups: participants from a crowdsourcing platform and International Math Olympiad competitors. We show that while many LLMs appear to broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments. Moreover, most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales. Together, our findings highlight both the promises and limitations of current LLMs in capturing human interestingness judgments for mathematical AI thought partnerships.

Competitive programming benchmarks are widely used in scenarios such as programming contests and large language model assessments. However, the growing presence of duplicate or highly similar problems raises concerns not only about competition fairness, but also about the validity of competitive programming as a benchmark for model evaluation. In this paper, we propose a new problem, similar question retrieval, to tackle this issue. Due to the lack of both data and models, solving this problem is challenging. To this end, we introduce CPRet, a retrieval-oriented benchmark suite for competitive programming, covering four retrieval tasks: two code-centric (i.e., Text-to-Code, Code-to-Code) and two newly proposed problem-centric tasks (i.e., Problem-to-Duplicate, Simplified-to-Full) built from a combination of automatically crawled problem-solution data and manually curated annotations. Our contribution includes both high-quality training data and temporally separated test sets for reliable evaluation. Besides, we further develop two task-specialized retrievers based on this dataset: CPRetriever-Code, trained with a novel Group-InfoNCE loss for problem-code alignment, and CPRetriever-Prob, fine-tuned for identifying problem-level similarity. Both models achieve strong results and are open-sourced for local use. Finally, we analyze LiveCodeBench and find that high-similarity problems inflate model pass rates and reduce differentiation, underscoring the need for similarity-aware evaluation in future benchmarks. Github: https://github.com/coldchair/CPRet Online Demo: https://www.cpret.online/

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on mathematical problems when prompted with Chain-of-Thought (CoT), yet it remains unclear whether this success stems from search, rote procedures, or rule-consistent reasoning. To address this, we propose modeling CoT as a certain rule-based stochastic process over directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where nodes represent intermediate derivation states and edges encode rule applications. Within this framework, we introduce logical closeness, a metric that quantifies how well a model's CoT trajectory (i.e., the LLM's final output) adheres to the DAG structure, providing evaluation beyond classical PASS@k metrics. Building on this, we introduce the DAG-MATH CoT format and construct a benchmark that guides LLMs to generate CoT trajectories in this format, thereby enabling the evaluation of their reasoning ability under our framework. Across standard mathematical reasoning datasets, our analysis uncovers statistically significant differences in reasoning fidelity among representative LLM families-even when PASS@k is comparable-highlighting gaps between final-answer accuracy and rule-consistent derivation. Our framework provides a balance between free-form CoT and formal proofs systems, offering actionable diagnostics for LLMs reasoning evaluation. Our benchmark and code are available at: https://github.com/YuanheZ/DAG-MATH-Formatted-CoT.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet it remains unclear whether such success reflects genuine reasoning or sophisticated recall. We introduce AInstein, a framework for testing whether LLMs can generate valid solutions to AI research problems using only their pretrained parametric knowledge -- without domain-specific fine-tuning, retrieval augmentation, or other external aids. Our approach extracts distilled problem statements from high-quality ICLR 2025 submissions, then tasks specialized solver agents with proposing and refining technical solutions through iterative critique loops, mimicking the cycles of proposal, review, and revision central to scientific inquiry. We evaluate AInstein on 1,214 ICLR papers stratified by acceptance tier (Oral, Spotlight, Poster), using an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm guided by a structured rubric, complemented by targeted manual checks. Performance is assessed with three metrics: Success Rate (does the solution address the problem?), Rediscovery (does it align with human-proposed methods?), and Novelty (does it yield valid, original approaches?). Our results reveal that while LLMs can rediscover feasible solutions and occasionally propose creative alternatives, their problem-solving ability remains fragile and highly sensitive to framing. These findings provide the first large-scale evidence on the extent to which LLMs can act as autonomous scientific problem-solvers, highlighting both their latent potential and their current limitations.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown strong performance on mathematical benchmarks. At the same time, they are prone to hallucination and sycophancy, often providing convincing but flawed proofs for incorrect mathematical statements provided by users. This significantly limits the applicability of LLMs in theorem proving, as verification of these flawed proofs must be done manually by expert mathematicians. However, existing benchmarks that measure sycophancy in mathematics are limited: they focus solely on final-answer problems, rely on very simple and often contaminated datasets, and construct benchmark samples using synthetic modifications that create ill-posed questions rather than well-posed questions that are demonstrably false. To address these issues, we introduce BrokenMath, the first benchmark for evaluating sycophantic behavior in LLMs within the context of natural language theorem proving. BrokenMath is built from advanced 2025 competition problems, which are perturbed with an LLM to produce false statements and subsequently refined through expert review. Using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and agentic systems and find that sycophancy is widespread, with the best model, GPT-5, producing sycophantic answers 29% of the time. We further investigate several mitigation strategies, including test-time interventions and supervised fine-tuning on curated sycophantic examples. These approaches substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, sycophantic behavior.