Where Induction Runs Out: Description-Length Difficulty and the Memorisation Gap in Integer-Sequence Benchmarks
On the map: LLM reasoning → Mathematical reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Integer sequences from the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) are increasingly used to benchmark mathematical reasoning in language models. We ask what such benchmarks actually measure, using an exactly computable reference learner: two-part minimum description length (MDL) over the class of P-recursive (holonomic) recurrences, evaluated on every prefix of a sequence as terms arrive. Three findings follow. First, MDL difficulty is a parameter count. The discovery point nd, the first prefix length at which a symbolic hypothesis beats verbatim storage, is predicted almost exactly by a combinatorial identifiability bound on the selected operator's order and degree. It is invariant to term magnitude: scaling Fibonacci over twelve orders of magnitude leaves nd unchanged, because a hypothesis must encode its own initial conditions and the magnitude cancels. Second, at scale the learner exhibits a regime our curated corpus could not produce even once: across 20,000 OEIS sequences, 89.98% of those that fit a recurrence on some prefix fit none at full length. We call this the wilderness -- induction acquires a theory, loses it, and never recovers. Third, evaluating three language models on sequences stratified by these MDL regimes refuted our pre-registered hypothesis: models do not confabulate where MDL reports no theory, but hedge appropriately. Confident errors are inverted, concentrating on the easy stratum, where apparent competence tracks recognition of the sequence rather than induction of its rule. OEIS-derived benchmarks therefore substantially measure memorisation, and MDL supplies a cheap, contamination-free difficulty signal they currently lack. Code and data are released.
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 4 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Aug 2026.
Builds on
4 of 26 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 3
- 2019AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regressioncited by 548
- 2022Deep Symbolic Regression for Recurrent Sequencescited by 54
- 2023Alien Codingcited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Do Large Language Models Truly Grasp Addition? A Rule-Focused Diagnostic Using Two-Integer Arithmetic
- 2024Language Models Need Inductive Biases to Count Inductively
- 2024LLM The Genius Paradox: A Linguistic and Math Expert's Struggle with Simple Word-based Counting Problems
- 2025Primender Sequence: A Novel Mathematical Construct for Testing Symbolic Inference and AI Reasoning
- 2026The Missing Primitive: Diagnosing and Repairing Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2024MLissard: Multilingual Long and Simple Sequential Reasoning Benchmarks
- 2025Code-driven Number Sequence Calculation: Enhancing the inductive Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models
- 2022Limitations of Language Models in Arithmetic and Symbolic Induction