# Benchmarking Large Language Models with Integer Sequence Generation Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04372 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04372/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 6 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Nov 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Mathematical reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/mathematical-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [Enhancing Code Translation in Language Models with Few-Shot Learning via Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19619/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Where Induction Runs Out: Description-Length Difficulty and the Memorisation Gap in Integer-Sequence Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29411/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present a novel benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning and algorithmic code synthesis tasks. The benchmark comprises integer sequence generation tasks sourced from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), testing LLMs' abilities to accurately and efficiently generate Python code to compute these sequences without using lookup tables. Our comprehensive evaluation includes leading models from OpenAI (including the specialized reasoning-focused o-series), Anthropic, Meta, and Google across a carefully selected set of 1000 OEIS sequences categorized as ``easy'' or ``hard.'' Half of these sequences are classical sequences from the early days of OEIS and half were recently added to avoid contamination with the models' training data. To prevent models from exploiting memorized sequence values, we introduce an automated cheating detection mechanism that flags usage of lookup tables, validated by comparison with human expert evaluations. Experimental results demonstrate that reasoning-specialized models (o3, o3-mini, o4-mini from OpenAI, and Gemini 2.5-pro from Google) achieve substantial improvements in accuracy over non-reasoning models, especially on more complex tasks. However, overall model performance on the hard sequences is poor, highlighting persistent challenges in algorithmic reasoning. Our benchmark provides important insights into the strengths and limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs, particularly emphasizing the necessity for further advancements to reliably solve complex mathematical reasoning tasks algorithmically.