mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LinAlg-Bench: A Forensic Benchmark Revealing Structural Failure Modes in LLM Mathematical Reasoning

arXiv 2605.16675 ↗First posted 15 May 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce LinAlg-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark evaluating 10 frontier large language models on structured linear algebra computation across a strict dimensional gradient of 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 matrices. Spanning 9 task types and 660 SymPy-certified problems, the benchmark exhaustively evaluates 6,600 model outputs. Beyond binary accuracy, LinAlg-Bench introduces a three-stage automated forensic pipeline classifying 1,156 failures into ten primary error tags with fine-grained subtypes, revealing that LLM mathematical failure is not random but structurally constrained by algorithm type and matrix dimension. Our central finding is a sharp behavioral threshold at 4x4 scale: below it, models fail through execution errors -- sign tracking failures, arithmetic drift, and parity errors; above it, failure transitions to computational abandonment, with models fabricating responses through tool roleplay, constraint-consistent confabulation, and structured hallucination rather than attempting computation. This fabrication-to-abandonment transition is near-universal across all model tiers and architectures, suggesting a working memory limit rather than a knowledge gap, supported by three scale-emergent error types absent at 3x3 but present at 4x4 and 5x5. We further show that solution strategy rigidity is a near-perfect predictor of 5x5 determinant accuracy, document constraint-aware confabulation as a novel structured hallucination failure mode, and release all data, model outputs, error labels, and judge pipeline publicly.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 25 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 May 2026.

Builds on

25 of 30 references.

References · 25

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  4. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  5. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  6. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  7. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  8. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
  9. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
  10. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  11. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  12. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,175
13 more
  1. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
  2. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
  3. 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,054
  4. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
  5. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
  6. 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 700
  7. 2023Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionalitycited by 496
  8. 2023How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowballcited by 310
  9. 2019A Multiscale Visualization of Attention in the Transformer Modelcited by 292
  10. 2019Deep Learning for Symbolic Mathematicscited by 266
  11. 2021Investigating the Limitations of Transformers with Simple Arithmetic Taskscited by 136
  12. 2023Teaching Arithmetic to Small Transformerscited by 121
  13. 2024MathBench: Evaluating the Theory and Application Proficiency of LLMs with a Hierarchical Mathematics Benchmarkcited by 103

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond Accuracy: Diagnosing Algebraic Reasoning Failures in LLMs Across Nine Complexity Dimensions
  2. 2026Unmasking Reasoning Processes: A Process-aware Benchmark for Evaluating Structural Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs
  3. 2026Cliff Tokens: Identifying Single-Token Failure Triggers in LLM Mathematical Reasoning
  4. 2025ReliableMath: Benchmark of Reliable Mathematical Reasoning on Large Language Models
  5. 2025Putnam-AXIOM: A Functional and Static Benchmark for Measuring Higher Level Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs
  6. 2025Mathematical Proof as a Litmus Test: Revealing Failure Modes of Advanced Large Reasoning Models
  7. 2026AdvancedMathBench: A Benchmark Suite for Advanced Mathematical Proof Generation and Verification
  8. 2025An Investigation of Robustness of LLMs in Mathematical Reasoning: Benchmarking with Mathematically-Equivalent Transformation of Advanced Mathematical Problems