Large language models have made substantial progress on mathematical reasoning, but existing benchmarks typically evaluate well-specified problems with final answers, step-by-step solutions, or complete proofs. They do not capture collaborative open-problem solving: a setting in which participants propose partial arguments, identify gaps or errors in prior steps, repair flawed reasoning, and gradually synthesize incremental contributions into a proof. We introduce CrowdMath, a dataset of 164 expert-annotated progress chains from the MIT PRIMES–Art of Problem Solving (AoPS) CrowdMath program (2016–2025), a collaborative research initiative whose discussions have led to peer-reviewed publications. Each chain traces a multi-participant forum discussion from an open-problem statement to a completed proof. Posts are labeled by their functional roles in the evolving solution process, including partial progress, proof completion, erroneous reasoning, and error identification. We define evaluation tasks and benchmark six frontier models. Models achieve 83–88% accuracy on next-post prediction, suggesting that they can follow the local flow of mathematical discussion. However, they struggle to identify the functional significance of individual contributions with the best model achieving only 0.42 macro-F1 on post-role classification. CrowdMath exposes a gap between solving well-specified mathematical problems and understanding collaborative mathematical progress as it unfolds.

This paper presents RuSentiment, a new dataset for sentiment analysis of social media posts in Russian, and a new set of comprehensive annotation guidelines that are extensible to other languages. RuSentiment is currently the largest in its class for Russian, with 31,185 posts annotated with Fleiss’ kappa of 0.58 (3 annotations per post). To diversify the dataset, 6,950 posts were pre-selected with an active learning-style strategy. We report baseline classification results, and we also release the best-performing embeddings trained on 3.2B tokens of Russian VKontakte posts.

This paper addresses the task of identifying the bias in news articles published during a political or social conflict. We create a silver-standard corpus based on the actions of users in social media. Specifically, we reconceptualize bias in terms of how likely a given article is to be shared or liked by each of the opposing sides. We apply our methodology to a dataset of links collected in relation to the Russia-Ukraine Maidan crisis from 2013-2014. We show that on the task of predicting which side is likely to prefer a given article, a Naive Bayes classifier can record 90.3% accuracy looking only at domain names of the news sources. The best accuracy of 93.5% is achieved by a feed forward neural network. We also apply our methodology to gold-labeled set of articles annotated for bias, where the aforementioned Naive Bayes classifier records 82.6% accuracy and a feed-forward neural networks records 85.6% accuracy.