The Effect of Scripts and Formats on LLM Numeracy

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong results on mathematical reasoning benchmarks yet remain unreliable on elementary numerical tasks, including magnitude comparison, large-integer arithmetic, fractions, and scientific notation. This survey examines basic numerical understanding as a capability distinct from high-level mathematical reasoning. We propose the Numerical Grounding Framework (NGF), which decomposes numeracy into Representational Grounding (RG), mapping numeral forms to value, magnitude, and equivalent representations, and Procedural Grounding (PG), executing arithmetic operations in accordance with their mathematical definitions. Using NGF, we organize recent diagnostic benchmarks, failure modes, structural explanations, and mitigation strategies. We review evidence concerning tokenization, positional encoding, embedding geometry, and pretraining-data distribution. We also apply NGF in a coordinated evaluation of three frontier model families across Number Cookbook, NumericBench, and GSM-Symbolic, comparing atomic, contextual, and reasoning-assisted numeracy. Architectural interventions such as digit-aware tokenization and Abacus Embeddings can improve models trained from scratch but are generally unavailable to users of pretrained systems, for whom supervised fine-tuning, reasoning scaffolds, and external tools are more practical. We conclude with deployment recommendations and research directions for more reliable numerical behavior in foundation models.

Despite the pivotal role of numerical reasoning as the cornerstone of mathematical capabilities in large language models (LLMs) across applications, few benchmarks evaluate LLMs by integrating numerical processing and mathematical reasoning, hindering the interpretability of failures in math tasks. We introduce PyraMathBench, a comprehensive hierarchical benchmark with 32,505 questions derived from 7,404 math word problems, spanning 4 key cognitive aspects, 14 subcategories, and 2 modalities. Experiments reveal that LLMs' performance is severely compromised by inadequate numerical computation and weak handling of abstract numerical questions. To address this, we propose the Smart Optimization & Learning-based VErsatile module (SOLVE) and Interactive Relative Policy Optimization (IRPO), which enhance LLMs' numerical-mathematical synergy via efficient tool calls (fuzzy matching and low-quality call rejection). Comparative experiments show Qwen-2.5 achieves a 5.0 score improvement with SOLVE and IRPO training.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet their performance drops when problems are modified with simple changes like different names or numbers. Code execution methods, which let models generate and run Python code instead of reasoning in natural language, have been proposed as a solution, but their effect on reasoning robustness (the ability to maintain accuracy across problem variations) has not been systematically tested. This study evaluates three approaches on 1,000 problems from the GSM-Symbolic dataset: pure reasoning using chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, single-shot code execution using Program-Aided Language models (PAL), and iterative code execution using Step-by-Step Coding (SBSC). All three were run on paired original and modified problems using Claude Haiku 4.5. CoT was the most robust method, with an accuracy drop of 1.3 percentage points and 1.8% of problems breaking under perturbation. PAL was the least robust at 1.7 percentage points and 3.1% broke, with SBSC falling in between. Although these differences were not statistically significant ($p = .096$), the directional trend was consistent across all measures, suggesting that code execution, whether single-shot or iterative, does not improve reasoning robustness on grade-school-level problem variations.