# Algorithmic Blindness in Large Language Models: A Calibration Study of Performance Prediction

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.21947 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.21947/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models as Optimizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03409/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.07646/) (2022)
- [DAGs with NO TEARS: Continuous Optimization for Structure Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.01422/) (2018)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.08411/) (2022)
- [State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00595/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [D'ya like DAGs? A Survey on Structure Learning and Causal Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.02582/) (2021)
- [Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08493/) (2023)
- [Emergent autonomous scientific research capabilities of large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05332/) (2023)
- [FollowBench: A Multi-level Fine-grained Constraints Following Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.20410/) (2023)
- [Causal Structure Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.09141/) (2017)
- [Can Large Language Models Reason and Plan?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04121/) (2024)
- [AutoML in the Age of Large Language Models: Current Challenges, Future Opportunities and Risks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08107/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable breadth of knowledge, yet their ability to reason about computational processes remains poorly understood. Closing this gap matters for practitioners who rely on LLMs to guide algorithm selection and deployment. We address this limitation using causal discovery as a testbed and evaluate eight frontier LLMs against ground truth derived from algorithm executions. We find systematic, near-total failure across models. The predicted ranges are far wider than true confidence intervals yet still fail to contain the true algorithmic mean in most cases. Most models perform worse than random guessing. The best model's marginal improvement points to benchmark memorization rather than principled reasoning. We term this failure algorithmic blindness and argue it reflects a fundamental gap between declarative knowledge about algorithms and calibrated procedural prediction.