Less Is More: Cognitive Load and the Single-Prompt Ceiling in LLM Mathematical Reasoning

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains the standard baseline for evaluating models' reasoning abilities. Originally, this technique was introduced to elicit step-by-step reasoning from large language models (LLMs), which would otherwise tend to directly output the final answer. However, many modern LLMs produce CoT-style responses \textit{natively} when presented with reasoning tasks, which made us revisit the effectiveness of standard CoT prompting. We evaluate several modern mid-sized language models on a math problem-solving task and find that models specialized for reasoning achieve better performance in a simple zero-shot setting than when using few-shot CoT examples - significantly surpassing officially reported results at no additional cost (e.g., from $\sim$77% to $\sim$84% for Mathstral on GSM8K). For the tested general-purpose model, a zero-shot CoT prompt is also sufficient to outperform a few-shot CoT baseline. We attribute this to a `guidance-distraction' tradeoff: standard CoT prompting also demands style adaptation, formatting compliance, and potentially undesired contextualization, which can distract models from the core reasoning task. Our findings suggest that using standard CoT prompting increasingly acts as a source of distraction as models grow stronger.

Mathematical reasoning has long served as a stringent test of machine intelligence; over the past decade, it has moved from a niche problem within NLP to one of the most consequential AI frontiers. This survey provides a unified account of the field's evolution, from early rule-based math word problem (MWP) solvers and template-driven geometry systems, through neural expression generation and LLM prompting, to contemporary reasoning models, multi-agent systems, neuro-symbolic theorem provers, and verified discovery workflows. We organize the landscape along four axes: (i) informal reasoning over text and diagrams, spanning MWP solving, multimodal geometry, and VLMs; (ii) formal reasoning in proof assistants, including autoformalization, tactic prediction, compiler-guided repair, and proof search; (iii) mathematical discovery, where systems propose constructions, improve bounds, or assist attacks on open problems; and (iv) the inference and training-time techniques, including CoT prompting, tool use, process reward models, and RLVR, that increasingly connect generation with verification. We catalog major benchmarks across grade-school arithmetic, competition mathematics, geometry, formal proving, multimodal and multilingual reasoning, and expert evaluation, and we examine benchmark saturation, contamination, reporting mismatches, and the distinction between pass@1, majority voting, and verifier-assisted pass@$k$. We critically assess failure modes: brittleness under perturbation, reward hacking, multimodal grounding failures, fragile formalization, and the energy cost of reasoning-scale inference. Drawing on recent perspectives from working mathematicians, we identify future directions centered on verified-discovery workflows, reasoning efficiency, and infrastructure to make AI-assisted formalization broadly usable. Companion materials: https://github.com/Starscream-11813/awesome-AI4Math.

The reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is a critical factor for practical LLM-based applications. To investigate the current reasoning capability of LLMs, we clarify the types of errors that arise in LLMs' reasoning processes on mathematical datasets. We focus on problems where LLMs produce an incorrect answer. We define errors in the reasoning process as reasoning errors and manually analyze the features of reasoning errors. We defined and classified 21 error classes and identified the frequently occurring classes among them. Beyond qualitative evaluation, we leverage the evaluation results to improve the reasoning capability. We designed a prompt that explicitly focuses on eight error classes. The experiments demonstrate that this prompt effectively improves reasoning performance. Furthermore, the results suggest that the frequent reasoning errors identified in this paper are common across LLMs of comparable scale.