# Max It or Miss It: Benchmarking LLM On Solving Extremal Problems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12997 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.12997/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 20 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2025.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [MathQA: Towards Interpretable Math Word Problem Solving with Operation-Based Formalisms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.13319/) (2019)
- [MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00110/) (2021)
- [Mathematical Capabilities of ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13867/) (2023)
- [ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12433/) (2023)
- [PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11214/) (2024)
- [MathBench: Evaluating the Theory and Application Proficiency of LLMs with a Hierarchical Mathematics Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12209/) (2024)
- [LLMOPT: Learning to Define and Solve General Optimization Problems from Scratch](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13213/) (2024)
- [Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15074/) (2023)
- [FIMO: A Challenge Formal Dataset for Automated Theorem Proving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.04295/) (2023)
- [HARDMath: A Benchmark Dataset for Challenging Problems in Applied Mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09988/) (2024)
- [CombiBench: Benchmarking LLM Capability for Combinatorial Mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.03171/) (2025)
- [LLM Economist: Large Population Models and Mechanism Design in Multi-Agent Generative Simulacra](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.15815/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Test-time scaling has enabled Large Language Models (LLMs) with remarkable reasoning capabilities, particularly in mathematical domains, through intermediate chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning before generating final answers. However, the specific sources and mechanisms underlying these reasoning capabilities remain insufficiently understood. Optimization reasoning, i.e. finding extrema under constraints, represents a fundamental abstraction that underpins critical applications in planning, control, resource allocation, and prompt search. To systematically evaluate this capability, we introduce ExtremBench, a benchmark dataset for solving mathematical extremal problems, curated from inequality exercises used for Chinese Mathematical Olympiad and transformed into 93 standardized extrema-finding problems. We conduct extensive evaluations across various state-of-the-art open-source model families, including the Qwen3, GPT-OSS, and DeepSeek. Our results reveal that LLMs' extremal-solving reasoning capabilities do not always align with those of current mathematical benchmarks such as AIME25 and MATH-500, with some models showing strong general mathematical reasoning but poor extremal-solving skills, and vice versa. This discrepancy highlights a critical gap in current evaluation practices and suggests that existing benchmarks may not comprehensively capture the full spectrum of mathematical reasoning abilities.