<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2109.00110/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2109.00110/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics — mentioned by gowld</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35156404</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2109.00110:35156404</guid><pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2023 18:38:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; It&amp;#x27;s AMC-12 scores aren&amp;#x27;t awful. A blank test scores 37.5 The best score 60 is 5 correct answers + 20 blank answers; or 6 correct, 4 correct random guesses, and 15 incorrect random guesses. (20% chance of correct guess) The 5 easiest questions are relatively simple calculations, once the parsing task is achieved. (Example: https://artofproblemsolving.com/wiki/index.php/2022_AMC_12A_... ) so the main factor in that score is how good GPT is at refusing to answer a question, or doing a bit better to overcome the guessing penalty. &amp;gt; It&amp;#x27;s AMC 10 score being dramatically lower is pretty bad…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2109.00110/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
