Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Across Large Language Models: A Fine-Grained Approach

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 2503.10573 v2 pith:3FG6JS7N submitted 2025-03-13 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords reasoningmathematicalacrossmodelsdomainsllmsperformanceachieves
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

With the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted a wide array of domains, including healthcare, engineering, science, education, and mathematical reasoning. Among these, mathematical reasoning remains a particularly challenging capability, often requiring multi-step logic and abstract generalization. While prior work has explored LLM performance on reasoning tasks, comprehensive evaluations that span both depth and breadth across model families remain limited. In this study, we present a systematic evaluation of mathematical reasoning abilities across eight leading LLMs, including two recent DeepSeek models, using three independent benchmark datasets. Our analyses reveal several key findings: (1) DeepSeek-R1 performs competitively with o1 across most domains and achieves the highest accuracy on the MMLU Formal Logic benchmark; (2) distilled variants, such as DeepSeek-1.5B, exhibit substantial performance degradation; and (3) Gemini 2.0 Flash achieves the lowest response latency. Beyond quantitative metrics, we explore how architectural choices, training paradigms, and optimization strategies contribute to variation in reasoning performance. These findings provide new insights into the capabilities and limitations of current LLMs in mathematical domains, and offer guidance for the development of future models better aligned with rigorous reasoning demands.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. RBF++: Quantifying and Optimizing Reasoning Boundaries across Measurable and Unmeasurable Capabilities for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    RBF++ models reasoning limits as harmonic-mean boundaries and uses them to explain, predict, and improve chain-of-thought performance across 38 models and 13 tasks.

Pith tools