Equation-suffix prediction benchmark D
AI benchmark · Math
Full listing name: Equation-suffix prediction benchmark (part of a self-supervised benchmark for math text continuation)
What is Equation-suffix prediction benchmark?
We introduce an automatically generated benchmark for predicting hidden text in technical papers. A paper supplies visible context $X$ and a hidden continuation $Y$; the evaluated model writes an auxiliary forecast string $Z$, and a separate scorer assigns next-token probability to $Y$ both with and without conditioning on $Z$. This gives a label-free test of whether $Z$ transmits information about the continuation, compared against controls where $Z$ is recent context rather than a forecast. Our main testbed is equation-suffix prediction: the predictor sees context and the first part of a displayed equation, then forecasts the rest. The task mixes surface-level arXiv/TeX text modeling with reasoning-sensitive inference; the suffix is one of many roughly equivalent continuations, so the benchmark is read statistically rather than item-by-item. On 1363 equation continuations from 138 recent physics and mathematics papers, forecasts from GPT-5.5, Opus 4.7, and GPT-5.4 nano all improve clipped likelihood over the context control under both Qwen3-8B and Kimi K2.6 scorers, distinguishing model families and reasoning-effort settings without human labels. To emulate shortcuts where $Z$ further primes the scorer rather than making a useful forecast, we also fine-tune the scorer on context-only prompts and apply it to held-out papers as a stronger control. GPT-5.5 forecasts still beat this fine-tuned control; GPT-5.4 nano forecasts do not. Longer prose/TeX continuations show positive but noisier lift over controls, concentrated near the beginning of the target. These results support cross-model likelihood scoring as a static benchmark and as a setup for probing shortcut vulnerabilities before reinforcement learning or model-selection optimization is applied.
Tier D
Long tail: little or no usage data yet.
How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.
- 3 models scored
- fewer than 5 models scored
- in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier D
- Adoption: 3 models scored; fewer than 5 models scored. Tier D.
- Not yet read on X.
- In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
- Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.
A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.
Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.
Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.