# RefGrader: Automated Grading of Mathematical Competition Proofs using Agentic Workflows

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09021 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09021/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Educational agents and math problem solving, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 52 of its 85 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Educational agents and math problem solving](https://mlsanity.com/agents/educational-agents-and-math-problem-solving/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 52)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [MetaMath: Bootstrap Your Own Mathematical Questions for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12284/) (2023)
- [MathQA: Towards Interpretable Math Word Problem Solving with Operation-Based Formalisms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.13319/) (2019)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00110/) (2021)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23281/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-Prover-V2: Advancing Formal Mathematical Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Subgoal Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21801/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning: Progresses and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00157/) (2024)
- [Omni-MATH: A Universal Olympiad Level Mathematic Benchmark For Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07985/) (2024)
- [Mathematical Capabilities of ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13867/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10200/) (2024)
- [A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmetic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00332/) (2024)
- [Goedel-Prover-V2: Scaling Formal Theorem Proving with Scaffolded Data Synthesis and Self-Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03613/) (2025)
- [Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16950/) (2024)
- [How well do Large Language Models perform in Arithmetic tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02015/) (2023)
- [GLoRe: When, Where, and How to Improve LLM Reasoning via Global and Local Refinements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10963/) (2024)
- [CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15638/) (2023)
- [LLM-Rubric: A Multidimensional, Calibrated Approach to Automated Evaluation of Natural Language Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00274/) (2024)
- [Functional Benchmarks for Robust Evaluation of Reasoning Performance, and the Reasoning Gap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19450/) (2024)
- [Proof or Bluff? Evaluating LLMs on 2025 USA Math Olympiad](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21934/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Beyond Benchmarks: MathArena as an Evaluation Platform for Mathematics with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00674/) (2026)
- [Pessimistic Verification for Open Ended Math Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21522/) (2025)
- [Not All Proofs Are Equal: Evaluating LLM Proof Quality Beyond Correctness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.10379/) (2026)
- [Confirming Correct, Missing the Rest: LLM Tutoring Agents Struggle Where Feedback Matters Most](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.16207/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

State-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs have progressed from struggling on proof-based Olympiad problems to solving most of the IMO 2025 problems, with leading systems reportedly handling 5 of 6 problems. Given this progress, we assess how well these models can grade proofs: detecting errors, judging their severity, and assigning fair scores beyond binary correctness. We study proof-analysis capabilities using a corpus of 90 Gemini 2.5 Pro-generated solutions that we grade on a 1-4 scale with detailed error annotations, and on MathArena solution sets for IMO/USAMO 2025 scored on a 0-7 scale. Our analysis shows that models can reliably flag incorrect (including subtly incorrect) solutions but exhibit calibration gaps in how partial credit is assigned. To address this, we introduce agentic workflows that extract and analyze reference solutions and automatically derive problem-specific rubrics for a multi-step grading process. We instantiate and compare different design choices for the grading workflows, and evaluate their trade-offs. Across our annotated corpus and MathArena, our proposed workflows achieve higher agreement with human grades and more consistent handling of partial credit across metrics. We release all code, data, and prompts/logs to facilitate future research.