Evaluating the symbolic reasoning of large language models (LLMs) calls for geometry benchmarks that require multi-step proofs grounded in both text and diagrams. However, existing benchmarks are often limited in scale and rarely provide visually grounded multiple-choice questions, limiting reliable evaluation of complex reasoning. We introduce GeoChallenge, a dataset of 90K automatically generated multiple-choice geometry proof problems, each requiring multi-step reasoning over aligned textual descriptions and diagrams. GeoChallenge provides fine-grained complexity ratings and formal language annotations to enable controlled evaluation. Experiments on multiple advanced LLMs show a clear performance gap between models and humans (the best-performing model, GPT-5-nano, achieves 75.89 exact match vs. 94.74 for humans). Further analysis also reveals three common failure patterns of LLMs: (1) exact match failures under the multiple-choice setting; (2) weak visual reliance; and (3) overextended reasoning without convergence.

Automatically generated questions often suffer from problems such as unclear expression or factual inaccuracies, requiring a reliable and comprehensive evaluation of their quality. Human evaluation is widely used in the field of question generation (QG) and serves as the gold standard for automatic metrics. However, there is a lack of unified human evaluation criteria, which hampers consistent and reliable evaluations of both QG models and automatic metrics. To address this, we propose QGEval, a multi-dimensional Evaluation benchmark for Question Generation, which evaluates both generated questions and existing automatic metrics across 7 dimensions: fluency, clarity, conciseness, relevance, consistency, answerability, and answer consistency. We demonstrate the appropriateness of these dimensions by examining their correlations and distinctions. Through consistent evaluations of QG models and automatic metrics with QGEval, we find that 1) most QG models perform unsatisfactorily in terms of answerability and answer consistency, and 2) existing metrics fail to align well with human judgments when evaluating generated questions across the 7 dimensions. We expect this work to foster the development of both QG technologies and their evaluation.

Conversational question generation aims to generate questions that depend on both context and conversation history. Conventional works utilizing deep learning have shown promising results, but heavily rely on the availability of large-scale annotated conversations. In this paper, we introduce a more realistic and less explored setting, Zero-shot Conversational Question Generation (ZeroCQG), which requires no human-labeled conversations for training. To solve ZeroCQG, we propose a multi-stage knowledge transfer framework, Synthesize, Prompt, and trAnsfer with pRe-Trained lAnguage model (SPARTA) to effectively leverage knowledge from single-turn question generation instances. To validate the zero-shot performance of SPARTA, we conduct extensive experiments on three conversational datasets: CoQA, QuAC, and DoQA by transferring knowledge from three single-turn datasets: MS MARCO, NewsQA, and SQuAD. The experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of our method. Specifically, SPARTA has achieved 14.81 BLEU-4 (88.2% absolute improvement compared to T5) in CoQA with knowledge transferred from SQuAD.