mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Token-by-Token Regeneration and Domain Biases: A Benchmark of LLMs on Advanced Mathematical Problem-Solving

arXiv 2501.17084 ↗First posted 28 Jan 2025cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) excel in many natural language tasks, yet they struggle with complex mathemat-ical problem-solving, particularly in symbolic reasoning and maintaining consistent output. This study evalu-ates 10 LLMs with 7 to 8 billion parameters using 945 competition-level problems from the MATH dataset. The focus is on their ability to generate executable Python code as a step in their reasoning process, involving over 9,450 code executions. The research introduces an evaluation framework using mistral-large-2411 to rate answers on a 5-point scale, which helps address inconsistencies in mathematical notation. It also examines the impact of regenerating output token-by-token on refining results. The findings reveal a significant 34.5% per-formance gap between the top commercial model (gpt-4o-mini, scoring 83.7%) and the least effective open-source model (open-codestral-mamba:v0.1, scoring 49.2%). This disparity is especially noticeable in complex areas like Number Theory. While token-by-token regeneration slightly improved accuracy (+0.8%) for the model llama3.1:8b, it also reduced code execution time by 36.7%, highlighting a trade-off between efficiency and precision. The study also noted a consistent trend where harder problems correlated with lower accuracy across all models. Despite using controlled execution environments, less than 1% of the generated code was unsafe, and 3.17% of problems remained unsolved after 10 attempts, suggesting that hybrid reasoning methods may be beneficial.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 7 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2025.

Builds on

7 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Can Language Models Rival Mathematics Students? Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning through Textual Manipulation and Human Experiments16 Dec
  2. 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models29 Jun

Other references · 5

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  4. 2024Mixtral of Expertscited by 1,823
  5. 2024A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in Large Language Modelscited by 269

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models
  2. 2024MARIO: MAth Reasoning with code Interpreter Output -- A Reproducible Pipeline
  3. 2024Tokenization counts: the impact of tokenization on arithmetic in frontier LLMs
  4. 2025Evaluation of LLMs for mathematical problem solving
  5. 2025Evaluating Intermediate Reasoning of Code-Assisted Large Language Models for Mathematics
  6. 2025Can LLMs textitunderstand Math? -- Exploring the Pitfalls in Mathematical Reasoning
  7. 2024Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction
  8. 2024Investigating Symbolic Capabilities of Large Language Models