# SenseMath: Do LLMs Have Number Sense? Evaluating Shortcut Use, Judgment, and Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01988 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01988/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [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)
- [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)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02255/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21187/) (2024)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [Chain of Draft: Thinking Faster by Writing Less](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18600/) (2025)
- [Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18547/) (2024)
- [Sketch-of-Thought: Efficient LLM Reasoning with Adaptive Cognitive-Inspired Sketching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.05179/) (2025)
- [Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13950/) (2024)
- [MathBench: Evaluating the Theory and Application Proficiency of LLMs with a Hierarchical Mathematics Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12209/) (2024)
- [Arithmetic Without Algorithms: Language Models Solve Math With a Bag of Heuristics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21272/) (2024)
- [MATH-Perturb: Benchmarking LLMs' Math Reasoning Abilities against Hard Perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06453/) (2025)
- [Number Cookbook: Number Understanding of Language Models and How to Improve It](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03766/) (2024)
- [Can neural networks do arithmetic? A survey on the elementary numerical skills of state-of-the-art deep learning models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07735/) (2023)
- [Exposing Numeracy Gaps: A Benchmark to Evaluate Fundamental Numerical Abilities in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11075/) (2025)
- [A Fragile Number Sense: Probing the Elemental Limits of Numerical Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06332/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models often default to step-by-step computation even when efficient numerical shortcuts are available. This raises a basic question: do they exhibit number sense in a human-like behavioral sense, i.e., the ability to recognize numerical structure, apply shortcuts when appropriate, and avoid them when they are not? We introduce SenseMath, a controlled benchmark for evaluating structure-sensitive numerical reasoning in LLMs. SenseMath contains 4,800 items spanning eight shortcut categories and four digit scales, with matched strong-shortcut, weak-shortcut, and control variants. It supports three evaluation settings of increasing cognitive demand: Shortcut Use (whether models can apply shortcuts on shortcut-amenable problems); Applicability Judgment (whether they can recognize when a shortcut is appropriate or misleading); and Problem Generation (whether they can generate new problem items that correctly admit a given type of shortcut). Our evaluation across five LLMs, ranging from GPT-4o-mini to Llama-3.1-8B, shows a consistent pattern: when explicitly prompted, models readily adopt shortcut strategies and achieve substantial accuracy gains on shortcut-amenable items (up to 15%), yet under standard chain-of-thought prompting they spontaneously employ such strategies in fewer than 40% of cases, even when they demonstrably possess the requisite capability. Moreover, this competence is confined to the Use level; models systematically over-generalise shortcuts to problems where they do not apply, and fail to generate valid shortcut-bearing problems from scratch. Together, these results suggest that current LLMs exhibit procedural shortcut fluency without the structural understanding of when and why shortcuts work that underlies human number sense.