Add response to Epoch AI review

README.md

@@ -129,3 +129,19 @@ The following table summarizes the Overall Pass@1 rates (%) as reported in the p
   copyright = {Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal}
 }
 ```
+
+## Response to the Epoch AI review
+
+*Posted 2026-10-23 by the CMT-Benchmark authors, in reply to [Epoch AI's review of v1.0.0](https://epoch.ai/benchmarks/cmt-benchmark/review).*
+
+1. **We had already found and fixed the real errors.** We were aware of problems in the original release before this review. We identified 10 of them ourselves, and the corrections are merged into this dataset as v2.0.0 (see the changelog above). The corrected problems are indices 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 31, 36, 39, 40, and 42. That includes problem 31, the example the review shows. An earlier update (v1.0.1) had already revised problems 0 and 2. The Epoch review evaluates v1.0.0; results should be cited against the current version.
+
+2. **We do not accept that 30 of the 50 problems are erroneous.** That figure comes from Ansari et al. (2026), who, as the review notes, graded with an LLM judge. In our reading, most of the items they flag are not errors. They are conventions standard in the relevant subfield that we deliberately left unstated. We wrote the problems as one would pose them to a graduate student or researcher in that area. Knowing those conventions is part of the expertise the benchmark is meant to test. An LLM-based audit will flag every unstated convention as a "missing assumption," but an unstated convention is not a scoring defect. Rewriting the problems to spell out every convention also makes them easier. So higher scores on the "repaired" set do not, by themselves, show that the original problems were graded wrongly.
+
+3. **The grading code is public.** The official evaluation and parsing code is available at https://github.com/JamesRoggeveen/cmt_benchmark_data. Results on the benchmark should be computed with that scorer, not with an LLM judge.
+
+4. **We are going through the remaining items flagged by Ansari et al.,** one problem at a time, with expert judgment. Where we agree that a problem is wrong or genuinely ambiguous, we will correct it in a versioned release with a changelog.
+
+We welcome careful outside scrutiny of the benchmark and would be glad to have Epoch review the corrected version.
+
+— Eun-Ah Kim, on behalf of the CMT-Benchmark authors