# Evaluating Intermediate Reasoning of Code-Assisted Large Language Models for Mathematics

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17665 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.17665/

## 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 22 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Apr 2025.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12950/) (2023)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19173/) (2024)
- [MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.05653/) (2023)
- [CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.10297/) (2020)
- [Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13379/) (2023)
- [ToRA: A Tool-Integrated Reasoning Agent for Mathematical Problem Solving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17452/) (2023)
- [MathPrompter: Mathematical Reasoning using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.05398/) (2023)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [Solving Challenging Math Word Problems Using GPT-4 Code Interpreter with Code-based Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07921/) (2023)
- [CodeBERTScore: Evaluating Code Generation with Pretrained Models of Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05527/) (2023)
- [LLM Reasoners: New Evaluation, Library, and Analysis of Step-by-Step Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05221/) (2024)
- [What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.06153/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Focus on Error Identification and Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00755/) (2024)
- [MATHSENSEI: A Tool-Augmented Large Language Model for Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17231/) (2024)
- [How Interpretable are Reasoning Explanations from Prompting Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11863/) (2024)

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

- [Fork-Think with Confidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.31484/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Assisting LLMs with code generation improved their performance on mathematical reasoning tasks. However, the evaluation of code-assisted LLMs is generally restricted to execution correctness, lacking a rigorous evaluation of their generated programs. In this work, we bridge this gap by conducting an in-depth analysis of code-assisted LLMs generated programs in response to math reasoning tasks, with a focus on evaluating the soundness of the underlying reasoning processes. For this purpose, we assess the generations of five LLMs, on several math datasets, both manually and automatically, and propose a taxonomy of generated programs based on their logical soundness. Our findings show that the capabilities of models significantly impact the logic implemented to solve the problem. Closed-source LLMs ground their programs in mathematical concepts, whereas open-source models often resort to unsound reasoning, relying on memorized information and exhaustive searches. Furthermore, increasing the difficulty of problems decreases sound generations for all models, revealing a critical shortcoming of LLMs on complex mathematics, contrary to what accuracy metrics suggest. Our work highlights the need for more holistic evaluations of code-assisted LLMs beyond execution accuracy metrics, toward a better understanding of LLMs' limits in the math domain.