Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on high-school and competition-level mathematics, yet their capabilities on advanced mathematics remain poorly understood.
Existing benchmarks, however, fall short in both scope and evaluation granularity: they provide limited disciplinary coverage and often rely on final-answer correctness or coarse judgments, leaving the validity of the reasoning process inadequately assessed.
To bridge this gap, we introduce AdvancedMathBench
a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of LLMs on advanced mathematical proofs.
Its core generation benchmark, ProverBench, contains 245 problems spanning undergraduate (UG) and doctoral qualifying-exam (QE) levels.
To reliably evaluate these proofs, we develop a dedicated automatic verification pipeline that is trained on large-scale expert annotations, produces both correctness verdicts and fine-grained analyses, and exhibits strong agreement with human experts on held-out proof trajectories.
We further introduce VerifierBench
consisting of 888 model-generated proof trajectories paired with expert ground truth, to evaluate whether models can correctly judge proof validity and provide sound verification rationales.
Experiments show that AdvancedMathBench remains challenging for frontier models.
On proof generation, the best-performing model, GPT-5.5-xhigh, achieves only 64.5 and 48.9 on the UG and QE splits, respectively.
On proof verification, the best model only attains a Balanced F1 of 65.1.
Further analysis reveals a notable mismatch between proof generation and verification capabilities across models.