The Natural Language to AlphaGeometry Benchmark (NL2AGBench), which evaluates LLMs in translating English geometry problems into AlphaGeometry-compatible formal representations and introduces an error taxonomy distinguishing syntax and logic errors, which yield measurable improvements across multiple model families.
Abstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in natural language understanding and mathematical reasoning. However, their ability to translate informal mathematical problems into formal representations remains underexplored. This limitation is particularly important for neuro-symbolic geometry systems such as AlphaGeometry, whose theorem-proving engine requires inputs in a specialized domain-specific language (DSL). Although AlphaGeometry achieves near-IMO gold-medalist performance, manually converting natural-language problems into its formal syntax remains a significant usability bottleneck. To address this challenge, we introduce the Natural Language to AlphaGeometry Benchmark (NL2AGBench), which evaluates LLMs in translating English geometry problems into AlphaGeometry-compatible formal representations. NL2AGBench uses execution-based verification within AlphaGeometry to assess translation quality rather than relying solely on textual similarity. We evaluate ten state-of-the-art open- and closed-source LLMs across multiple parameter scales and analyze executable translation accuracy, syntactic correctness, and error characteristics. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between closed- and open-source models: leading closed-source models achieve executable translation rates above 80%, while even the largest open-source models struggle to consistently preserve geometric constraints and produce valid formalizations. We introduce an error taxonomy distinguishing syntax and logic errors and investigate mitigation strategies, including few-shot prompting, fine-tuning, and human-guided hinting, which yield measurable improvements across multiple model families.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.
D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 236 citations· ⚡13
The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.
P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al.· Conference on Object-Oriente...· 225 citations· ⚡18
A study with 42 participants investigates the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers and offers support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities.
D. Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· PeerJ· 216 citations· ⚡13
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations of such models.
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.
Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· International Conference on...· 175 citations· ⚡19