PreprintCited by 5Topic ModelingMathematics, Computing, and Information ProcessingMathematics Education and Pedagogy

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

AceMath: Advancing Frontier Math Reasoning with Post-Training and Reward Modeling

Open access

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce AceMath, a suite of frontier math models that excel in solving complex math problems, along with highly effective reward models capable of evaluating generated solutions and reliably identifying the correct ones. To develop the instruction-tuned math models, we propose a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) process that first achieves competitive performance across general domains, followed by targeted fine-tuning for the math domain using a carefully curated set of prompts and synthetically generated responses. The resulting model, AceMath-72B-Instruct greatly outperforms Qwen2.5-Math-72B-Instruct, GPT-4o and Claude-3.5 Sonnet. To develop math-specialized reward model, we first construct AceMath-RewardBench, a comprehensive and robust benchmark for evaluating math reward models across diverse problems and difficulty levels. After that, we present a systematic approach to build our math reward models. The resulting model, AceMath-72B-RM, consistently outperforms state-of-the-art reward models. Furthermore, when combining AceMath-72B-Instruct with AceMath-72B-RM, we achieve the highest average rm@8 score across the math reasoning benchmarks. We release model weights, training data, and evaluation benchmarks at: https://research.nvidia.com/labs/adlr/acemath

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.15084

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing studies primarily focus on reasoning tasks related to coding, mathematics, and STEM fields, even within multimodal reasoning settings.

    “However, existing studies primarily focus on reasoning tasks related to coding, mathematics, and STEM fields (Liu et al., 2024), even within multimodal reasoning settings (Qwen-Team, 2024).”

    From Cosmos-Reason1: From Physical Common Sense To Embodied Reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2024

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Z., Chen, Y., Shoeybi, M., Catanzaro, B., & Ping, W.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
3993-4015
OpenAlex
W4412888745
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2
FWCI
4.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
mathematical reasoning, large language models, reward models, instruction tuning, supervised fine-tuning, synthetic training data, mathematical problem solving

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review