Yutao Hou, Zeguan Xiao, Fei Yu, Yihan Jiang, Ma Shuguang, Zhaoqian Dai, Hailiang Huang, Yun Chen, Guanhua Chen
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various reasoning-intensive tasks. However, these models exhibit unexpected brittleness, often failing on simple variations of the same underlying task. Existing robustness evaluations predominantly rely on hand-crafted templates or a limited set of perturbation rules. Consequently, such approaches lack the adaptability to probe latent vulnerab ...
ilities unique to specific models and remain susceptible to data contamination. To address this, we propose the Math Stress Tester (MaSTer), an automated framework inspired by software stress testing. MaSTer generates adversarial variants via a multi-round rewrite-verify loop, ensuring semantic consistency while successfully inducing model failure. Our framework generates benchmark variants dynamically for each LLM, thus minimizing the risk of data contamination. Experiments on GSM8K and MATH-500 demonstrate the effectiveness of MaSTer on mathematical tasks. Additionally, we validate the framework's extensibility to non-mathematical tasks, highlighting its broad applicability. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the synthesized variants generated by MaSTer can be utilized as a fine-tuning dataset to significantly enhance the model's robustness.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning / puzzle solving | MATH | Accuracy | 500 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Reasoning / puzzle solving | GSM8K | Accuracy | 500 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Adversarial robustness | GSM8K | Accuracy | 500 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Adversarial robustness | MATH | Accuracy | 3.2 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various reasoning-intensive tasks.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Reasoning / puzzle solving
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.