Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Classroom Final Exam: An Instructor-Tested Reasoning Benchmark

Chongyang Gao, Diji Yang, Shuyan Zhou, Xichen Yan, Luchuan Song, Shuo Li, Kezhen Chen · Feb 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Coding Long Horizon
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 23, 2026, 5:17 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 6:41 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains. \CFE{} is curated from repeatedly used, authentic university homework and exam problems, together with reference solutions provided by course instructors. \CFE{} presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room for improvement. Beyond leaderboard results, we perform a diagnostic analysis by decomposing reference solutions into reasoning flows. We find that although frontier models can often answer intermediate sub-questions correctly, they struggle to reliably derive and maintain correct intermediate states throughout multi-step solutions. We further observe that model-generated solutions typically have more reasoning steps than those provided by the instructor, indicating suboptimal step efficiency and a higher risk of error accumulation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/Analogy-AI/CFE_Bench.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: \CFE{} presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room for improvement.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Coding
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We introduce (Classroom Final Exam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics, Long Horizon with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 6:41 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We introduce (Classroom Final Exam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.
  • presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model,…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce (Classroom Final Exam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.
  • presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We introduce (Classroom Final Exam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote