Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong results on mathematical reasoning benchmarks yet remain unreliable on elementary numerical tasks, including magnitude comparison, large-integer arithmetic, fractions, and scientific notation. This survey examines basic numerical understanding as a capability distinct from high-level mathematical reasoning.
arXiv:2608. 13129v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong results on mathematical reasoning benchmarks yet remain unreliable on elementary numerical tasks, including magnitude comparison, large-integer arithmetic, fractions, and scientific notation.
arXiv:2609.39294v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Precise numerical reasoning with Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for expanding their applicability to complex real-world tasks. However, text...
arXiv:2605. 19723v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Mathematical reasoning is essential for problem-solving in education, science, and industry, serving as a crucial benchmark for evaluating artificial intelligence systems.
Large language models achieve strong performance on arithmetic reasoning benchmarks, and one common response to arithmetic brittleness is to delegate computation to code. Yet models are still often used in settings where they must reason directly from natural language, and trustworthy models should solve small-number arithmetic word problems without external tools.
arXiv:2606. 03606v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models achieve strong performance on arithmetic reasoning benchmarks, and one common response to arithmetic brittleness is to delegate computation to code.
arXiv:2610. 02191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated striking capabilities on frontier mathematical problems, it remains unclear whether they possess the structural mathematical understanding underlying their solutions.
NL2AGBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models can translate English geometry problems into the formal language required by AlphaGeometry’s theorem‑proving engine. The study tests ten state‑of‑the‑art LLMs, comparing executable translation accuracy, syntactic correctness, and error types, and finds a large gap between closed‑source and open‑source models. The authors also propose an error taxonomy and test mitigation strategies such as few‑shot prompting, fine‑tuning, and human‑guided hinting, which improve performance across model families.
The paper introduces a neuro‑symbolic framework for scientific reasoning that separates symbolic validity and semantic groundedness. A deterministic symbolic verifier acts as a hard filter to guarantee syntactic and arithmetic correctness, while a Process Reward Model (PRM) is trained on verifier‑accepted steps to assess contextual grounding. The authors propose Counterfactual Symbolic Perturbation (CSP) to generate hard negative examples that pass the verifier but are logically flawed, enabling efficient PRM training and a verifier‑first constrained search at inference.
arXiv:2603.02504v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on natural language tasks but remain unreliable in mathematical reasoning, frequently gener...
arXiv:2601.21225v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models have made substantial progress in mathematical reasoning. However, benchmark development for multilingual evaluation ha...
arXiv:2607. 20520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on mathematical problem solving, yet prior work often treats representationally equivalent formulations as interchangeable and conflates reasoning errors with interface failures.
arXiv:2608. 04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute.