# Large Language Models' Reasoning Stalls: An Investigation into the Capabilities of Frontier Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19676 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19676/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 94 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 May 2025.

## Placed in

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

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

- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14245/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Empirical methods to examine the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to use Automated Theorem Prover (ATP) reasoning strategies are studied. We evaluate the performance of State of the Art models from December 2023 and August 2024 on PRONTOQA steamroller reasoning problems. For that, we develop methods for assessing LLM response accuracy and correct answer correlation. Our results show that progress in improving LLM reasoning abilities has stalled over the nine month period. By tracking completion tokens, we show that almost all improvement in reasoning ability since GPT-4 was released can be attributed to either hidden system prompts or the training of models to automatically use generic Chain of Thought prompting strategies. Among the ATP reasoning strategies tried, we found that current frontier LLMs are best able to follow the bottom-up (also known as forward-chaining) strategy. A low positive correlation was found between an LLM response containing correct reasoning and arriving at the correct conclusion.