Cliff Tokens: Identifying Single-Token Failure Triggers in LLM Mathematical Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models reach high accuracy in mathematical reasoning, but individual traces on the same problem diverge; some arrive at the correct answer while others fail. Prior work localizes such failures at the step, chunk, or sentence level, or identifies tokens where failure has already occurred. These approaches leave open which token triggers failure. We introduce the cliff token, a token at which the estimated probability of reaching the correct answer (success probability) drops beyond an adaptive threshold. Across seven models and three mathematical reasoning benchmarks (GSM1K, MATH500, AIME 2025), cliff tokens act as failure triggers. For incorrect traces containing cliff tokens, we compare resampling immediately before and after the first cliff token. Resampling before it shows higher pass@k at the same sample count. We further introduce a cliff taxonomy of deterministic, uncertain, and sampled-off cliffs, defined by greedy choice and token entropy. Additionally, we show that the three types differ as training signals. Using single-token preference optimization at cliff positions (Cliff-DPO), we find that uncertain and sampled-off cliffs show larger accuracy gains than deterministic cliffs on three evaluation benchmarks. We release token-level rollout data and source code to enable further analysis without regenerating costly rollouts: https://github.com/beaver-22/Cliff-token
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 14 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2026.
Builds on
14 of 40 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 13
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
- 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
- 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
- 2024Phi-4 Technical Reportcited by 711
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
- 2024Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervisioncited by 441
- 2025Thought Anchors: Which LLM Reasoning Steps Matter?cited by 129
- 2025StepWiser: Stepwise Generative Judges for Wiser Reasoningcited by 28
- 2025Beyond the Last Answer: Your Reasoning Trace Uncovers More than You Thinkcited by 16
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025ReliableMath: Benchmark of Reliable Mathematical Reasoning on Large Language Models
- 2026Understanding LLM Failures: A Multi-Tape Turing Machine Analysis of Systematic Errors in Language Model Reasoning
- 2025FINEREASON: Evaluating and Improving LLMs' Deliberate Reasoning through Reflective Puzzle Solving
- 2025Large Language Models and Mathematical Reasoning Failures
- 2024From Blind Solvers to Logical Thinkers: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Integrity on Faulty Mathematical Problems
- 2026Silent Failures in Quantized LLM Reasoning: A Taxonomy-Based Analysis of Hollow Convergence and Failure Mode Shifts
- 2025Do LLMs Overthink Basic Math Reasoning? Benchmarking the Accuracy-Efficiency Tradeoff in Language Models
- 2026"I May Not Have Articulated Myself Clearly": Diagnosing Dynamic Instability in LLM Reasoning at Inference Time