Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Exploring the Compositional Deficiency of Large Language Models in Mathematical Reasoning

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 2405.06680 v4 pith:OBOD24ZH submitted 2024-05-05 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Human cognition exhibits systematic compositionality, the algebraic ability to generate infinite novel combinations from finite learned components, which is the key to understanding and reasoning about complex logic. In this work, we investigate the compositionality of large language models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning. Specifically, we construct a new dataset \textsc{MathTrap} by introducing carefully designed logical traps into the problem descriptions of MATH and GSM8K. Since problems with logical flaws are quite rare in the real world, these represent "unseen" cases to LLMs. Solving these requires the models to systematically compose (1) the mathematical knowledge involved in the original problems with (2) knowledge related to the introduced traps. Our experiments show that while LLMs possess both components of requisite knowledge, they do not \textbf{spontaneously} combine them to handle these novel cases. We explore several methods to mitigate this deficiency, such as natural language prompts, few-shot demonstrations, and fine-tuning. Additionally, we test the recently released OpenAI o1 model and find that human-like `slow thinking' helps improve the compositionality of LLMs. Overall, systematic compositionality remains an open challenge for large language models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitions

    cs.AI 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    MathArena evaluates over 50 LLMs on 162 fresh competition problems across seven contests, detects contamination in AIME 2024, and reports top models scoring below 40 percent on IMO 2025 proof tasks.

  2. Generalization in LLM Problem Solving: The Case of the Shortest Path

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs show strong spatial generalization to unseen maps in shortest-path tasks but fail length scaling due to recursive instability, with data coverage setting hard limits.

  3. Thinking with Video: Video Generation as a Promising Multimodal Reasoning Paradigm

    cs.CV 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Video generation models demonstrate competitive multimodal reasoning on a new benchmark, matching or exceeding VLMs on visual puzzles and achieving 92% on MATH and 69.2% on MMMU.

Pith tools