When LLMs Stop Following Steps: A Diagnostic Study of Procedural Execution in Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong performance on reasoning benchmarks, but final-answer accuracy alone does not show whether they faithfully execute the procedure specified in a prompt. We introduce a controlled diagnostic benchmark for arithmetic procedural execution, where models are given a step-wise arithmetic procedure and two numeric inputs, and must return the final computed value. Complexity is varied through procedure length and look-back dependencies over intermediate variables. Average first-answer accuracy drops from 63% on 5-step procedures to 20% on 95-step procedures. Generation-level analysis shows that failures often involve missing answers, premature answers, self-correction after an initial error and under-executed traces. These findings reveal a consistent decline in execution performance as arithmetic procedural complexity increases.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 May 2026.
Builds on
27 of 39 references.
References · 27
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 815
- 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 550
- 2023The Impact of Positional Encoding on Length Generalization in Transformerscited by 327
- 2015Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Taskscited by 314
- 2022Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verificationcited by 307
- 2025The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexitycited by 302
- 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 295
- 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 284
- 2019Compositionality decomposed: how do neural networks generalise?cited by 265
- 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 263
15 more
- 2023What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length Generalizationcited by 199
- 2021Thinking Like Transformerscited by 184
- 2021Implicit Representations of Meaning in Neural Language Modelscited by 180
- 2019CLUTRR: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Inductive Reasoning from Textcited by 162
- 2019What Can Neural Networks Reason About?cited by 159
- 2021Can You Learn an Algorithm? Generalizing from Easy to Hard Problems with Recurrent Networkscited by 117
- 2022Teaching Algorithmic Reasoning via In-context Learningcited by 112
- 2021Neural Algorithmic Reasoningcited by 94
- 2025Proof or Bluff? Evaluating LLMs on 2025 USA Math Olympiadcited by 74
- 2023Generalization on the Unseen, Logic Reasoning and Degree Curriculumcited by 73
- 2018Tracking State Changes in Procedural Text: A Challenge Dataset and Models for Process Paragraph Comprehensioncited by 62
- 2025Sample, Scrutinize and Scale: Effective Inference-Time Search by Scaling Verificationcited by 50
- 2018Reasoning about Actions and State Changes by Injecting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 29
- 2024Principled Understanding of Generalization for Generative Transformer Models in Arithmetic Reasoning Taskscited by 5
- 2024GroundCocoa: A Benchmark for Evaluating Compositional & Conditional Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.