# Unmasking Reasoning Processes: A Process-aware Benchmark for Evaluating Structural Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00564 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00564/

## 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 15 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [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)
- [MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00110/) (2021)
- [Omni-MATH: A Universal Olympiad Level Mathematic Benchmark For Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07985/) (2024)
- [FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04872/) (2024)
- [ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01100/) (2025)
- [Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.12474/) (2023)
- [Mutual Reasoning Makes Smaller LLMs Stronger Problem-Solvers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06195/) (2024)
- [Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13950/) (2024)
- [CMATH: Can Your Language Model Pass Chinese Elementary School Math Test?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.16636/) (2023)
- [ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativeness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10703/) (2023)
- [Hard2Verify: A Step-Level Verification Benchmark for Open-Ended Frontier Math](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13744/) (2025)
- [How Contaminated Is Your Benchmark? Quantifying Dataset Leakage in Large Language Models with Kernel Divergence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00678/) (2025)
- [OpenAI-o1 AB Testing: Does the o1 model really do good reasoning in math problem solving?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.06198/) (2024)

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

- [The Missing Primitive: Diagnosing and Repairing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02191/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent large language models (LLMs) achieve near-saturation accuracy on many established mathematical reasoning benchmarks, raising concerns about their ability to diagnose genuine reasoning competence. This saturation largely stems from the dominance of template-based computation and shallow arithmetic decomposition in existing datasets, which underrepresent reasoning skills such as multi-constraint coordination, constructive logical synthesis, and spatial inference. To address this gap, we introduce ReasoningMath-Plus, a benchmark of 150 carefully curated problems explicitly designed to evaluate structural reasoning. Each problem emphasizes reasoning under interacting constraints, constructive solution formation, or non-trivial structural insight, and is annotated with a minimal reasoning skeleton to support fine-grained process-level evaluation. Alongside the dataset, we introduce HCRS (Hazard-aware Chain-based Rule Score), a deterministic step-level scoring function, and train a Process Reward Model (PRM) on the annotated reasoning traces. Empirically, while leading models attain relatively high final-answer accuracy (up to 5.8/10), HCRS-based holistic evaluation yields substantially lower scores (average 4.36/10, best 5.14/10), showing that answer-only metrics can overestimate reasoning robustness.