Benchmark Almanac

CombiBench

Seed-Prover 1.5 48% leads since December 2025
DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 10% leads since May 2025
Seed-Prover 1.5 48% leads since December 2025
Fading

Provers solve 100 combinatorics problems formalized in Lean 4, from middle school to IMO and university level. Lean checks each proof.

DeepSeek-Prover-V2 reports it in a with-solution setting, where fill-in-the-blank answers are given.

Released
May 2025
Kind
Formal proofs
Level
Competition
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Written proof
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
o1 #117 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
December 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
December 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Neurosymbolic approaches integrating large language models with formal reasoning have recently achieved human-level performance on mathematics competition problems in algebra, geometry and number theory. In comparison, combinatorics remains a challenging domain, characterized by a lack of appropriate benchmarks and theorem libraries. To address this gap, we introduce CombiBench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 100 combinatorial problems, each formalized in Lean 4 and paired with its corresponding informal statement. The problem set covers a wide spectrum of difficulty levels, ranging from middle school to IMO and university level, and span over ten combinatorial topics. CombiBench is suitable for testing IMO solving capabilities since it includes all IMO combinatorial problems since 2000 (except IMO 2004 P3 as its statement contain an images). Furthermore, we provide a comprehensive and standardized evaluation framework, dubbed Fine-Eval (for Fill-in-the-blank $in$ Lean Evaluation), for formal mathematics. It accommodates not only proof-based problems but also, for the first time, the evaluation of fill-in-the-blank questions. Using Fine-Eval as the evaluation method and Kimina Lean Server as the backend, we benchmark several LLMs on CombiBench and observe that their capabilities for formally solving combinatorial problems remain limited. Among all models tested (none of which has been trained for this particular task), Kimina-Prover attains the best results, solving 7 problems (out of 100) under both “with solution” and “without solution” scenarios. We open source the benchmark dataset alongside with the code of the proposed evaluation method at https://github.com/MoonshotAI/CombiBench/.

Abstract of CombiBench: Benchmarking LLM Capability for Combinatorial Mathematics (arXiv:2505.03171, CC0)
3
Models scored in lab cards
2
Launch posts list it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Seed-Prover 1.5 leads with 48% among models released by December 2025

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B leads with 10% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Seed-Prover 1.5 leads with 48%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in December 2025, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Seed-Prover 1.5 48%
  2. 2 Seed-Prover 30%
  3. 3 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 10%

Source: Labs’ model cards

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed-Prover 1.5 48% Dec 2025 Lab model card
2 Seed-Prover 30% Jul 2025 Lab model card
3 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 10% Apr 2025 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 10% without solution, pass@16 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
2 o1 2.00% with solution, pass@16 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
3 o3-mini 2.00% with solution, pass@16 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 2.00% without solution, pass@16 Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Seed-Prover 1.5 48% Dec 2025 Lab model card
2 Seed-Prover 30% Jul 2025 Lab model card
3 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 10% without solution, pass@16 Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
4 o1 2.00% with solution, pass@16 Dec 2024 Official leaderboard
5 o3-mini 2.00% with solution, pass@16 Jan 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Claude 3.7 Sonnet 2.00% without solution, pass@16 Feb 2025 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 11 entries, 4 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
o1
with soluti…
2.00%
o3-mini
without sol… with soluti…
2.00%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
with soluti… without sol…
2.00%

Source: Official CombiBench leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B without solution, pass@16 10%
o1 with solution, pass@16 2.00%
o1 without solution, pass@16 2.00%
o3-mini with solution, pass@16 2.00%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet without solution, pass@16 2.00%
o3-mini without solution, pass@16 1.00%
Claude 3.7 Sonnet with solution, pass@16 0%

3 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in May 2025 Number one over time 3 models have held number one with claims included since its release in May 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

DeepSeek ByteDance Seed
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2025
Lab claims Not tested since Dec 2025

Sources: Official CombiBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed-Prover 1.5 Seed-Prover DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B o1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Seed-Prover 1.5 Seed-Prover

Sources: Official CombiBench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Labs headline it less often now, last in December 2025

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

ByteDance Seed
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Dec 19, 2025 Seed-Prover 1.5 48 Combibench
Jul 31, 2025 Seed-Prover 30 CombiBench (Medium)

One system card reports it

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Apr 30, 2025 DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B technical report 10 CombiBench with-solution setting, CoT, Pass@16, 10 of 100 solved (Table 5). Version 1 reported 12 Capabilities

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. 1 of them match, which usually means one side copied the other. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B 10% CombiBench with-solution setting, CoT, Pass@16, 10 of 100 solved (Table 5). Version 1 reported 12 10% Leaderboard, without solution, pass@16 Same

More in Math

All 113 in Math
  • AIME 2026 In use Models solve the 30 integer-answer problems from the 2026 AIME I and II math competitions. Scored by exact answer match. GPT-5.5 100%
  • IMO-AnswerBench In use 400 olympiad problems with short verifiable answers, robustified against memorization. Scored by answer match. GLM-5.2 91%
  • HMMT 2026 In use Models solve the 33 final-answer problems from the February 2026 Harvard-MIT Mathematics Tournament. Scored by exact answer match. GPT-5.5 98.5%
  • PolyMath In use Models solve 9,000 parallel math problems in 18 languages across four difficulty levels, from school math to frontier math. Final answers are checked. Qwen3.7-Max 86.5%
  • MathArena (Apex, IMO, USAMO) In use Evaluates models on newly released math competitions after release. Final-answer or human/LLM-judged proof scores. Claude Opus 4.8 81.3%
  • MathArena Apex Shortlist In use Models solve 47 hard final-answer problems that MathArena selected from 2025 competitions, where the best models scored about 50% at selection. Scored by accuracy over repeated attempts. GPT-5.5 98.4%