Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

LLM The Genius Paradox: A Linguistic and Math Expert's Struggle with Simple Word-based Counting Problems

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 2410.14166 v2 pith:Q42MBXNL submitted 2024-10-18 cs.CL cs.AI

LLM The Genius Paradox: A Linguistic and Math Expert's Struggle with Simple Word-based Counting Problems

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords llmscountingtaskscapabilitiesconjecturesmodelproblemsreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Interestingly, LLMs yet struggle with some basic tasks that humans find trivial to handle, e.g., counting the number of character r's in the word "strawberry". There are several popular conjectures (e.g., tokenization, architecture and training data) regarding the reason for deficiency of LLMs in simple word-based counting problems, sharing the similar belief that such failure stems from model pretraining hence probably inevitable during deployment. In this paper, we carefully design multiple evaluation settings to investigate validity of prevalent conjectures. Meanwhile, we measure transferability of advanced mathematical and coding reasoning capabilities from specialized LLMs to simple counting tasks. Although specialized LLMs suffer from counting problems as well, we find conjectures about inherent deficiency of LLMs invalid and further seek opportunities to elicit knowledge and capabilities from LLMs that are beneficial to counting tasks. Compared with strategies such as finetuning and in-context learning that are commonly adopted to enhance performance on new or challenging tasks, we show that engaging reasoning is the most robust and efficient way to help LLMs better perceive tasks with more accurate responses. We hope our conjecture validation design could provide insights into the study of future critical failure modes of LLMs. Based on challenges in transferring advanced capabilities to much simpler tasks, we call for more attention to model capability acquisition and evaluation. We also highlight the importance of cultivating consciousness of "reasoning before responding" during model pretraining.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Do AI Models Dream of Faster Code? An Empirical Study on LLM-Proposed Performance Improvements in Real-World Software

    cs.SE 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs propose volatile performance improvements on real-world Java tasks that lag human developers on average, showing algorithmic benchmarks overestimate capabilities.

  2. Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Evaluations of 53 LLMs on 14 basic math tasks show reasoning models use ~18x more tokens with sometimes lower accuracy, non-monotonic gains from extended budgets, and sharp performance drops under token constraints.