Systematic Diagnosis of Brittle Reasoning in Large Language Models

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.08595
• Title: Systematic Diagnosis of Brittle Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Author: V. S. Raghu Parupudi (University of California, San Diego)
• Classification: cs.CL (Computation and Language)
• Conference: 39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025) Workshop: MATH-AI
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08595v1

Abstract

One of the core questions in artificial intelligence is the extent to which machine learning models understand mathematics. To address this issue, this paper proposes a novel framework for measuring mathematical reasoning capabilities that goes beyond standard benchmarks and can diagnose specific failure points. The method first generates structured step-by-step reasoning from GPT-3.5-turbo on the GSM8K dataset, then employs a more powerful analytical model, GPT-4o-mini, to classify errors and perform unsupervised clustering on each reasoning sentence to identify emerging "reasoning patterns." The analysis reveals a cognitive profile with distinctly non-human brittleness: while the model achieves near-perfect accuracy on procedural patterns such as sequential computation, performance drops sharply on patterns requiring compositional reasoning and constraints.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core problem this research addresses is: How can we systematically diagnose the specific failure patterns of large language models in mathematical reasoning? Although LLMs have made significant progress on mathematical reasoning tasks, current evaluation methods primarily focus on the correctness of final answers, lacking in-depth analysis of specific failure points during the reasoning process.

Problem Significance

1. Reasoning Reliability: Even state-of-the-art models trained with process supervision regularly produce logical errors
2. Diagnostic Gap: The field lacks a systematic, scalable framework for diagnosing persistent failure patterns
3. Application Requirements: Practical applications require understanding when, where, and why models fail

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Coarse-grained Evaluation: Existing benchmarks primarily focus on task-level accuracy without providing fine-grained cognitive diagnostics
2. Lack of Systematicity: Absence of automated, post-hoc methods for diagnosing reasoning failures
3. Insufficient Pattern Recognition: Inability to identify and quantify the reliability of different reasoning skills

Core Contributions

1. Proposed a Novel Diagnostic Framework: Developed an automated, post-hoc reasoning failure diagnosis system
2. Discovered Reasoning Patterns: Identified distinct "reasoning patterns" through unsupervised clustering and quantified their reliability
3. Revealed Cognitive Brittleness: Discovered non-human brittleness characteristics in LLM reasoning—exhibiting extreme binary outcomes (100% success vs. 0% failure) on related mathematical concepts
4. Provided Precise Improvement Roadmap: Supplied a data-driven agenda for developing more reliable models

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: GSM8K mathematical problems Output: Diagnostic analysis of structured reasoning trajectories, including failure classification and reasoning pattern reliability assessment Objective: Identify and quantify specific failure patterns in LLM mathematical reasoning

Model Architecture

Three-Layer Analysis Pipeline

1. Generator Model: GPT-3.5-turbo-1106 generates structured reasoning trajectories
2. Embedding Model: text-embedding-3-large generates sentence embeddings
3. Analyzer Model: GPT-4o-mini performs error classification and cluster annotation

Core Methodology Flow

Step 1: Structured Reasoning Generation

• Enforce step-by-step reasoning and final answer output using JSON format
• Set temperature to 0.0 to ensure deterministic output

Step 2: Automated Diagnosis

• Analyzer model programmatically examines each failed trajectory
• Identifies and classifies the first failure point

Step 3: Reasoning Pattern Clustering Analysis

• Convert all reasoning sentences to high-dimensional vectors (text-embedding-3-large)
• Apply L2 normalization to embedding vectors
• Perform unsupervised clustering using HDBSCAN algorithm
• GPT-4o-mini automatically generates cluster labels

Step 4: Reliability Quantification

• Based on trajectory-level binary annotations (correct/incorrect)
• Calculate "accuracy rate" for each cluster (percentage of sentences from successful reasoning trajectories)
• Validate statistical significance using Fisher's exact test

Technical Innovations

1. Trajectory-Level Penalty Mechanism: Any single error invalidates the entire reasoning trajectory, providing a clear binary statistical signal
2. Unsupervised Pattern Discovery: Automatically discover emerging reasoning patterns through clustering rather than predefined categories
3. Multi-Model Collaboration: Leverage models with different capabilities working in concert (generation, embedding, analysis)
4. Statistical Validation: Use Fisher's exact test to ensure discovered patterns have statistical significance

Experimental Setup

Dataset

• Data Source: Random sample from GSM8K training set
• Sample Size: 1,000 problems
• Sampling Method: Fixed random seed to ensure reproducibility

Evaluation Metrics

• Task-Level Accuracy: Correctness of final answers
• Cluster Accuracy: Proportion of sentences from successful trajectories in each reasoning pattern cluster
• Statistical Significance: Fisher's exact test (p < 0.05)

Implementation Details

• Model Configuration: All models set to temperature 0.0
• Clustering Algorithm: HDBSCAN applied directly to high-dimensional normalized embeddings
• Baseline Comparison: Overall 84.9% problem-level accuracy serves as sentence-level accuracy baseline

Experimental Results

Main Results

Overall Performance

• Total Accuracy: 84.9% (849/1000)
• Failed Cases: 151 error responses for detailed analysis

High-Level Failure Classification

Reasoning Pattern Reliability Analysis

High-Reliability Patterns (Near-Perfect):

• Cluster 172: Computing total cost of items - 100.0% accuracy
• Cluster 47: Sequential computational steps - 100.0% accuracy
• Cluster 171: Computing total cost or profit - 95.1% accuracy

Fragile Reasoning Patterns (Significant Failure):

• Cluster 11: Computing combinations with constraints - 0.0% accuracy
• Cluster 93: Substitution and equation simplification - 27.3% accuracy
• Cluster 60: Computing and rounding time or quantity - 27.3% accuracy

Key Findings

Cognitive Brittleness Characteristics

1. Extreme Bimodality: Exhibits 100% success versus 0% failure extremes on related mathematical concepts
2. Procedural vs. Compositional: Procedural tasks (e.g., sequential computation) achieve near-perfect performance, while compositional reasoning tasks completely fail
3. Non-Human Cognitive Pattern: This extreme success-failure dichotomy differs significantly from human learning patterns

Statistical Validation

All highlighted clusters passed Fisher's exact test (p < 0.05), confirming that observed performance differences are not random artifacts.

Related Work

Reasoning Path Generation and Supervision

1. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Methods: Significantly enhance mathematical reasoning performance through intermediate step prompting
2. Tree-of-Thoughts (ToT) Framework: Enables exploration of multiple divergent reasoning paths and self-evaluation
3. Process Supervision: Lightman et al. demonstrated that providing feedback on each intermediate step is more effective than supervising only final results

LLM-as-a-Judge Paradigm

1. LLM-as-a-Judge: Zheng et al. found that strong models like GPT-4 achieve over 80% agreement with human preferences on open-ended tasks
2. Self-Improvement Frameworks: Use a single LLM to generate initial outputs, provide feedback, and improve outputs

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Discovered Systematic Brittleness: LLMs exhibit non-human cognitive brittleness in mathematical reasoning
2. Identified Critical Failure Patterns: Compositional reasoning and constraint handling are major weak points
3. Provided Diagnostic Tools: Developed a scalable framework for diagnosing reasoning failures

Limitations

1. Single Model Constraint: Analysis based on only one generator model, GPT-3.5-turbo
2. Dataset Scope: Uses only GSM8K dataset, potentially limiting generalizability
3. Analyzer Dependency: Diagnosis relies on LLM analyzer, whose judgment accuracy requires further verification
4. Resource Constraints: Due to resource limitations, unable to conduct larger-scale cross-model analysis

Future Directions

1. Cross-Model Analysis: Apply the pipeline to multiple state-of-the-art models (GPT-4, Claude 3, Gemini 1.5)
2. Domain Extension: Extend to more complex reasoning domains
3. Closed-Loop Improvement: Use identified fragile clusters for targeted fine-tuning to verify whether specific reasoning deficits can be remedied

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Methodological Innovation: First to propose a systematic reasoning pattern diagnosis framework
2. Insightful Findings: Reveals non-human brittleness characteristics in LLM cognition
3. Rigorous Experimental Design: Uses statistical tests to validate the significance of findings
4. High Practical Value: Provides precise data-driven guidance for model improvement

Weaknesses

1. Limited Sample Size: 1,000 samples may be insufficient to fully represent all reasoning patterns
2. Model Dependency: Over-reliance on specific OpenAI models may affect result generalizability
3. Cluster Interpretability: Interpretability and stability of HDBSCAN clustering results require further verification
4. Lack of Human Comparison: No direct comparison with human reasoning patterns for validation

Impact

1. Theoretical Contribution: Provides a new theoretical framework for understanding LLM mathematical reasoning capabilities
2. Practical Guidance: Offers specific target directions for model training and improvement
3. Methodological Value: Diagnostic framework applicable to other reasoning tasks and models

Applicable Scenarios

1. Model Evaluation: Provides fine-grained assessment of LLM mathematical reasoning capabilities
2. Training Optimization: Guides targeted model training and data augmentation
3. Application Deployment: Helps identify model reliability in specific reasoning scenarios
4. Research Tool: Provides standardized diagnostic tools for reasoning capability research

References

1. Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. (2013). Density-based clustering based on hierarchical density estimates.
2. Cobbe, K., et al. (2021). Training verifiers to solve math word problems.
3. Lightman, H., et al. (2023). Let's verify step by step.
4. Wei, J., et al. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.
5. Yao, S., et al. (2023). Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models.

Overall Assessment: This is a paper of significant theoretical and practical value that systematically diagnoses brittleness patterns in LLM mathematical reasoning for the first time. While limited in experimental scale and model coverage, the proposed diagnostic framework and discovered cognitive brittleness characteristics provide important insights for understanding and improving LLM reasoning capabilities. The paper's methodological innovation and practical value make it highly impactful in the AI reasoning research field.