# MortalMATH: Evaluating the Conflict Between Reasoning Objectives and Emergency Contexts

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18790 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.18790/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 6 of its 9 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

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

- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Chain of Draft: Thinking Faster by Writing Less](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18600/) (2025)
- [LLM Post-Training: A Deep Dive into Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.21321/) (2025)
- [Read the Scene, Not the Script: Outcome-Aware Safety for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04320/) (2025)
- [Emergent Risk Awareness in Rational Agents under Resource Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23436/) (2025)
- [AURA: Affordance-Understanding and Risk-aware Alignment Technique for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06124/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models are increasingly optimized for deep reasoning, prioritizing the correct execution of complex tasks over general conversation. We investigate whether this focus on calculation creates a "tunnel vision" that ignores safety in critical situations. We introduce MortalMATH, a benchmark of 150 scenarios where users request algebra help while describing increasingly life-threatening emergencies (e.g., stroke symptoms, freefall). We find a sharp behavioral split: generalist models (like Llama-3.1) successfully refuse the math to address the danger. In contrast, specialized reasoning models (like Qwen-3-32b and GPT-5-nano) often ignore the emergency entirely, maintaining over 95 percent task completion rates while the user describes dying. Furthermore, the computational time required for reasoning introduces dangerous delays: up to 15 seconds before any potential help is offered. These results suggest that training models to relentlessly pursue correct answers may inadvertently unlearn the survival instincts required for safe deployment.