Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper investigates the reliability of mathematical reasoning in large language models, finding that a significant portion of correct answers are derived through inconsistent reasoning pathways. They introduce faithfulness metrics to analyze reasoning quality and identify "silent failures," where models confidently produce incorrect answers. The study reveals a weak negative correlation between reasoning quality and correctness, and shows that scaling model size does not guarantee improved accuracy on a subset of GSM8K.
LLMs can ace math problems while reasoning like a drunk toddler, with 82% of correct answers arising from unstable, inconsistent logic.
Mathematical reasoning models are widely deployed in education, automated tutoring, and decision support systems despite exhibiting fundamental computational instabilities. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable reasoning pathways: 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways. Additionally, 8.8% of all predictions are silent failures -- confident yet incorrect outputs. Through comprehensive analysis using novel faithfulness metrics, we reveal: (1) reasoning quality shows weak negative correlation with correctness (r=-0.21, p=0.002), reflecting a binary classification threshold artifact rather than a monotonic inverse relationship; (2) scaling from 1.5B to 7B parameters (4.7x increase) provides zero accuracy benefit on our evaluated subset (6% of GSM8K), requiring validation on the complete benchmark; and (3) latent reasoning employs diverse computational strategies, with ~20% sharing CoT-like patterns. These findings highlight that benchmark accuracy can mask computational unreliability, demanding evaluation reforms measuring stability beyond single-sample metrics.
