Large Language Models Struggle with Unreasonability in Math Problems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19346v6
• Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 15:53:04 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Struggle with Unreasonability in Math Problems
• Authors: Jingyuan Ma, Damai Dai, Zihang Yuan, Rui li, Weilin Luo, Bin Wang, Qun Liu, Lei Sha, Zhifang Sui,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable success on a wide range of math and reasoning benchmarks.<n>We observe that they often struggle when faced with unreasonable math problems.<n>We propose the textbfUnreasonable Math Problems (UMP) benchmark, designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to detect and respond to unreasonable math problem statements.
• Score: 41.970853209666224
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable success on a wide range of math and reasoning benchmarks. However, we observe that they often struggle when faced with unreasonable math problems. Instead of recognizing these issues, models frequently proceed as if the problem is well-posed, producing incorrect answers or falling into overthinking and verbose self-correction. To systematically investigate this overlooked vulnerability, we propose the \textbf{Unreasonable Math Problems (UMP)} benchmark, designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to detect and respond to unreasonable math problem statements. Based on extensive experiments covering 19 LLMs, we find that even state-of-the-art general models like GPT-4o achieve only a score of 0.6 on UMP. While reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1 demonstrate a higher sensitivity to unreasonable inputs, this often comes at the cost of generating overly long and meaningless responses that fail to converge. We further explore prompting and fine-tuning methods, which offer partial improvements but also introduce trade-offs, shedding light on both the potential and limitations of LLMs in this challenging setting.

Related papers

• Frontier LLMs Still Struggle with Simple Reasoning Tasks [53.497499123166804]
  This work studies the performance of frontier language models on a broad set of "easy" reasoning problems.<n>We create a suite of procedurally generated simple reasoning tasks, including counting, first-order logic, proof trees, and travel planning.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art thinking models consistently fail on such problems and for similar reasons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T22:22:49Z)
• Large Language Models and Mathematical Reasoning Failures [1.6114012813668932]
  This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems.<n>We rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures.<n>We find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T09:07:32Z)
• MathConstruct: Challenging LLM Reasoning with Constructive Proofs [0.9320657506524149]
  mc is a new benchmark of 126 challenging problems sourced from various math competitions. mc is suitable for Large Language Models evaluation, as solution correctness can be easily verified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T14:44:22Z)
• Do Large Language Models Truly Grasp Mathematics? An Empirical Exploration From Cognitive Psychology [13.964263002704582]
  We show that, even with the use of Chains of Thought prompts, mainstream LLMs have a high error rate when solving modified CRT problems. Specifically, the average accuracy rate dropped by up to 50% compared to the original questions. This finding challenges the belief that LLMs have genuine mathematical reasoning abilities comparable to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T05:01:56Z)
• HARDMath: A Benchmark Dataset for Challenging Problems in Applied Mathematics [1.5716764919736026]
  We introduce HARDMath, a dataset featuring challenging applied mathematics problems that require analytical approximation techniques.<n>Our framework auto-generates a large number of problems with solutions validated against numerical ground truths.<n>We evaluate both open- and closed-source LLMs on HARDMath-mini, a sub-sampled test set of 366 problems, as well as on 40 word problems formulated in applied science contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T20:09:41Z)
• Not All LLM Reasoners Are Created Equal [58.236453890457476]
  We study the depth of grade-school math problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. We evaluate their performance on pairs of existing math word problems together.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T17:01:10Z)
• Solving for X and Beyond: Can Large Language Models Solve Complex Math Problems with More-Than-Two Unknowns? [57.80779199039929]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in solving math problems. This paper introduces a novel benchmark, BeyondX, designed to address these limitations by incorporating problems with multiple unknowns. Empirical study on BeyondX reveals that the performance of existing LLMs, even those fine-tuned specifically on math tasks, significantly decreases as the number of unknowns increases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T17:01:04Z)
• Achieving >97% on GSM8K: Deeply Understanding the Problems Makes LLMs Better Solvers for Math Word Problems [50.76385564061713]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has enhanced the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various reasoning tasks. CoT usually suffers from three pitfalls: semantic misunderstanding errors, calculation errors, and step-missing errors. We propose Deeply Understanding the Problems (DUP) to improve the LLMs' math problem-solving ability by addressing semantic misunderstanding errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T12:16:05Z)
• GSM-Plus: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs as Mathematical Problem Solvers [68.77382332826167]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks. One essential and frequently occurring evidence is that when the math questions are slightly changed, LLMs can behave incorrectly. This motivates us to evaluate the robustness of LLMs' math reasoning capability by testing a wide range of question variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T15:26:14Z)
• Adversarial Math Word Problem Generation [6.92510069380188]
  We propose a new paradigm for ensuring fair evaluation of large language models (LLMs) We generate adversarial examples which preserve the structure and difficulty of the original questions aimed for assessment, but are unsolvable by LLMs. We conduct experiments on various open- and closed-source LLMs, quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrating that our method significantly degrades their math problem-solving ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T22:07:52Z)
• The Earth is Flat? Unveiling Factual Errors in Large Language Models [89.94270049334479]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are in various applications due to their extensive knowledge from pre-training and fine-tuning. Despite this, they are prone to generating factual and commonsense errors, raising concerns in critical areas like healthcare, journalism, and education. We introduce a novel, automatic testing framework, FactChecker, aimed at uncovering factual inaccuracies in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T14:02:27Z)
• Decoding Logic Errors: A Comparative Study on Bug Detection by Students and Large Language Models [5.162225137921625]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated surprising performance for a range of computing tasks. We investigate the performance of two popular LLMs, GPT-3 and GPT-4, for detecting and providing a novice-friendly explanation of logic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T17:28:33Z)
• Learning From Mistakes Makes LLM Better Reasoner [106.48571828587728]
  Large language models (LLMs) recently exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities on solving math problems. This work explores whether LLMs can LEarn from MistAkes (LEMA), akin to the human learning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T17:52:22Z)
• SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning [55.76083560152823]
  SelfCheck is a general-purpose zero-shot verification schema for recognizing errors in step-by-step reasoning. We test SelfCheck on three datasets (GSM8K, MathQA, and MATH) and find that it successfully recognizes errors and, in turn, increases final answer accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T10:31:36Z)
• Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models [23.344490944210456]
  We present 515Bench, a more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of large language models (LLMs) We curate challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the highly competitive IIT-Advanced exam. Our evaluation on various open-source and proprietary models reveals that the highest performance, even after using techniques like self-consistency, self-refinement and chain-of-thought prompting, is less than 40%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:55:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.