Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Large Language Models in Numberland: A Quick Test of Their Numerical Reasoning Abilities

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.00226 v1 pith:F2E762HS submitted 2025-03-31 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords numberproblemsreasoningnumericaltestabilitiesagentscomplex
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

An essential element of human mathematical reasoning is our number sense -- an abstract understanding of numbers and their relationships -- which allows us to solve problems involving vast number spaces using limited computational resources. Mathematical reasoning of Large Language Models (LLMs) is often tested on high-level problems (such as Olympiad challenges, geometry, word problems, and puzzles), but their low-level number sense remains less explored. We introduce "Numberland," a 100-problem test to evaluate the numerical reasoning abilities of LLM-based agents. The tasks -- basic operations, advanced calculations (e.g., exponentiation, complex numbers), prime number checks, and the 24 game -- aim to test elementary skills and their integration in solving complex and uncertain problems. We evaluated five LLM-based agents: OpenAI's o1 and o1-mini, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Anthropic Claude. They scored 74-95% on the first three tasks that allow deterministic steps to solutions. In the 24 game, which needs trial-and-error search, performance dropped to 10-73%. We tested the top 24 solver (o1 with 73% accuracy) on 25 harder problems, and its score fell to 27%, confirming search as a bottleneck. These results, along with the types of mistakes, suggest a fragile number of LLMs, which is a bit surprising given their prowess in challenging benchmarks. The limits of LLM numerical reasoning highlight the scope of simple, targeted tests to evaluate and explain LLM math skills to ensure safe use.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Credit Cards, Confusion, Computation, and Consequences: What Can We Uncover About Language Model Reasoning?

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    CreditCardQA shows LLMs err mainly on credit-card contractual conditions and comparisons, not arithmetic, with Program-of-Thought narrowing open–closed model gaps.

  2. Univariate to Multivariate: LLMs as Zero-Shot Predictors for Time-Series Forecasting

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLMPred improves LLM-based forecasting by frequency-decomposing inputs and adding an MLP post-processor, but the reported gains largely reflect the trained post-processor and a narrowed multivariate comparison rather ...

Pith tools