# Can Large Language Models do Analytical Reasoning?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04031 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04031/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 0 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Large language models for artificial general intelligence (AGI): A survey of foundational principles and approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03151/) (2025)
- [When Reasoning Meets Information Aggregation: A Case Study with Sports Narratives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12084/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Large Models in Sports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14377/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper explores the cutting-edge Large Language Model with analytical reasoning on sports. Our analytical reasoning embodies the tasks of letting large language models count how many points each team scores in a quarter in the NBA and NFL games. Our major discoveries are in two folds. Firstly, we find among all the models we employed, GPT-4 stands out in effectiveness, followed by Claude-2.1, with GPT-3.5, Gemini-Pro, and Llama-2-70b lagging behind. Specifically, we compare three different prompting techniques and a divide-and-conquer approach, we find that the latter was the most effective. Our divide-and-conquer approach breaks down play-by-play data into smaller, more manageable segments, solves each piece individually, and then aggregates them together. Besides the divide-and-conquer approach, we also explore the Chain of Thought (CoT) strategy, which markedly improves outcomes for certain models, notably GPT-4 and Claude-2.1, with their accuracy rates increasing significantly. However, the CoT strategy has negligible or even detrimental effects on the performance of other models like GPT-3.5 and Gemini-Pro. Secondly, to our surprise, we observe that most models, including GPT-4, struggle to accurately count the total scores for NBA quarters despite showing strong performance in counting NFL quarter scores. This leads us to further investigate the factors that impact the complexity of analytical reasoning tasks with extensive experiments, through which we conclude that task complexity depends on the length of context, the information density, and the presence of related information. Our research provides valuable insights into the complexity of analytical reasoning tasks and potential directions for developing future large language models.