The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
From Blind Solvers to Logical Thinkers: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Integrity on Faulty Mathematical Problems
Open accessAbstract
Consider the math problem: "Lily received 3 cookies from her best friend yesterday and ate 5 for breakfast. Today, her friend gave her 3 more cookies. How many cookies does Lily have now?" Many large language models (LLMs) in previous research approach this problem by calculating the answer "1" using the equation "3 - 5 + 3." However, from a human perspective, we recognize the inherent flaw in this problem: Lily cannot eat 5 cookies if she initially only had 3. This discrepancy prompts a key question: Are current LLMs merely Blind Solver that apply mathematical operations without deeper reasoning, or can they function as Logical Thinker capable of identifying logical inconsistencies? To explore this question, we propose a benchmark dataset, FaultyMath, which includes faulty math problems of rich diversity: i) multiple mathematical categories, e.g., algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., ii) varying levels of difficulty, and iii) different origins of faultiness -- ranging from violations of common sense and ambiguous statements to mathematical contradictions and more. We evaluate a broad spectrum of LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and math-specialized models, using FaultyMath across three dimensions: (i) How accurately can the models detect faulty math problems without being explicitly prompted to do so? (ii) When provided with hints -- either correct or misleading -- about the validity of the problems, to what extent do LLMs adapt to become reliable Logical Thinker? (iii) How trustworthy are the explanations generated by LLMs when they recognize a math problem as flawed? Through extensive experimentation and detailed analysis, our results demonstrate that existing LLMs largely function as Blind Solver and fall short of the reasoning capabilities required to perform as Logical Thinker.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs exhibit susceptibility when faced with unsolvable or faulty Math Word Problems.
“Additionally, LLMs exhibit susceptibility when faced with unsolvable or faulty MWPs (Ma et al., 2024a; Rahman et al., 2024; Tian et al., 2024).”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Rahman et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Ale- man, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
- Janice Ahn, Rishu Verma, Renze Lou, Di Liu, Rui Zhang, and Wenpeng Yin. Large language models for mathematical reasoning: Progresses and challenges. In Neele Falk, Sara Papi, and Mike Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2024: Student Research Workshop, St. Julian's, Malta, March 21-22, 2024, pp. 225-237. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-srw.17. AI Anthropic. The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku. Claude-3 Model Card, 2024.
- Z Azerbayev, H Schoelkopf, K Paster, MD Santos, S McAleer, AQ Jiang, J Deng, S Biderman, and S Welleck. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics.(2023). arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10631, 2021. · arXiv
- Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Luo Ji, Mei Li, Junyang Lin, Runji Lin, Dayiheng Liu, Gao Liu, Chengqiang Lu, Keming Lu, Jianxin Ma, Rui Men, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Chuanqi Tan, Sinan Tan, Jianhong Tu, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Wei Wang, Shengguang Wu, Benfeng Xu, Jin Xu, An Yang, Hao Yang, Jian Yang, Shusheng Yang, Yang Yao, Bowen Yu, Hongyi Yuan, Zheng Yuan, Jianwei Zhang, Xingxuan Zhang, Yichang Zhang, Zhenru Zhang, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, Xiaohuan Zhou, and Tianhang Zhu. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023. · arXiv
- Daniel G Bobrow. A question-answering system for high school algebra word problems. In Pro- ceedings of the October 27-29, 1964, fall joint computer conference, part I, pp. 591-614, 1964.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akhil Arora, Steven Basart, Dawn Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021a. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS, 2021b.
- Danqing Huang, Jing Liu, Chin-Yew Lin, and Jian Yin. Neural math word problem solver with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 213-223, 2018.
- Bin Lei. Macm: Utilizing a multi-agent system for condition mining in solving complex mathemat- ical problems, 2024. · DOI
- Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ra- masesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3843-3857, 2022.
- Zhenwen Liang, Jipeng Zhang, Lei Wang, Wei Qin, Yunshi Lan, Jie Shao, and Xiangliang Zhang. Mwp-bert: Numeracy-augmented pre-training for math word problem solving. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pp. 997-1009, 2022.
- Qianying Liu, Wenyv Guan, Sujian Li, and Daisuke Kawahara. Tree-structured decoding for solving math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 2370-2379, 2019.
- Renze Lou, Kai Zhang, Jian Xie, Yuxuan Sun, Janice Ahn, Hanzi Xu, Yu Su, and Wenpeng Yin. MUFFIN: curating multi-faceted instructions for improving instruction following. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= 1vrS1zwekw. Meta. Meta llama 3, 2024. URL https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-3/. Ac- cessed: 2024-06-12.
- Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Zhangir Azerbayev, and Jimmy Ba. Openwebmath: An open dataset of high-quality mathematical web text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06786, 2023. · arXiv
- Machel Reid, Nikolay Savinov, Denis Teplyashin, Dmitry Lepikhin, Timothy Lillicrap, Jean- baptiste Alayrac, Radu Soricut, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Firat, Julian Schrittwieser, et al. Gem- ini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024. · arXiv
- David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. Analysing mathematical rea- soning abilities of neural models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1gR5iR5FX.
- Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, and Daya Guo. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024. · arXiv
- Shubham Toshniwal, Ivan Moshkov, Sean Narenthiran, Daria Gitman, Fei Jia, and Igor Gitman. Openmathinstruct-1: A 1.8 million math instruction tuning dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv: Arxiv- 2402.10176, 2024a.
- Shubham Toshniwal, Ivan Moshkov, Sean Narenthiran, Daria Gitman, Fei Jia, and Igor Git- man. Openmathinstruct-1: A 1.8 million math instruction tuning dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10176, 2024b. · arXiv
- Lei Wang, Yan Wang, Deng Cai, Dongxiang Zhang, and Xiaojiang Liu. Translating a math word problem to an expression tree. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05632, 2018. · arXiv
- Lei Wang, Dongxiang Zhang, Jipeng Zhang, Xing Xu, Lianli Gao, Bing Tian Dai, and Heng Tao Shen. Template-based math word problem solvers with recursive neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pp. 7144-7151, 2019.
- Yan Wang, Xiaojiang Liu, and Shuming Shi. Deep neural solver for math word problems. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp. 845-854, 2017.
- Zengzhi Wang, Rui Xia, and Pengfei Liu. Generative ai for math: Part i-mathpile: A billion-token- scale pretraining corpus for math. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17120, 2023. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
- Qinzhuo Wu, Qi Zhang, Jinlan Fu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. A knowledge-aware sequence-to-tree network for math word problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp. 7137-7146, 2020.
- Zhipeng Xie and Shichao Sun. A goal-driven tree-structured neural model for math word problems. In Ijcai, pp. 5299-5305, 2019.
- Huaiyuan Ying, Shuo Zhang, Linyang Li, Zhejian Zhou, Yunfan Shao, Zhaoye Fei, Yichuan Ma, Jiawei Hong, Kuikun Liu, Ziyi Wang, et al. Internlm-math: Open math large language models toward verifiable reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06332, 2024b. · arXiv
- Alex Young, Bei Chen, Chao Li, Chengen Huang, Ge Zhang, Guanwei Zhang, Heng Li, Jiangcheng Zhu, Jianqun Chen, Jing Chang, et al. Yi: Open foundation models by 01. ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04652, 2024. · arXiv
- Lifan Yuan, Yangyi Chen, Xingyao Wang, Yi R. Fung, Hao Peng, and Heng Ji. Craft: Customizing llms by creating and retrieving from specialized toolsets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00147, 2023. URL https://paperswithcode.com/paper/ craft-customizing-llms-by-creating-and. · arXiv
- Beichen Zhang, Kun Zhou, Xilin Wei, Xin Zhao, Jing Sha, Shijin Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. Evalu- ating and improving tool-augmented computation-intensive math reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Qihuang Zhong, Kang Wang, Ziyang Xu, Juhua Liu, Liang Ding, Bo Du, and Dacheng Tao. Achiev- ing ¿97 Aojun Zhou, Ke Wang, Zimu Lu, Weikang Shi, Sichun Luo, Zipeng Qin, Shaoqing Lu, Anya Jia, Linqi Song, Mingjie Zhan, et al. Solving challenging math word problems using gpt-4 code interpreter with code-based self-verification. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. GPT-4: DID NOT IDENTIFY Yes GEMINI-1.5-PRO: IDENTIFIED Here's how to determine if the problem is valid and solvable: 1. Set up the equation: Let the first even number be represented by x. The next consecutive even number is x + 2. The problem translates to the equation: (x + 2) 2 -x 2 = 58.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
Song, P., Han, P., & Goodman, N. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06176 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Rahman, A. M. M., Ye, J., Yao, W., Liu, S. S., Yu, J., Yu, J., Yin, W., & Wang, G.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.18921
- OpenAlex
- W4404307570
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- large language models, mathematical reasoning, explanation reliability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
