Large language models now achieve high final-answer accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, but accuracy alone does not capture reasoning flexibility. We introduce a strategy-level evaluation framework instantiated on 80 AMC 10/12 and AIME problems with 217 AoPS-derived reference strategy families. Model outputs are annotated for strategy identity, validity, and correctness using dual-AI coding with human adjudication. Across four frontier models, we find a pronounced decoupling between answer accuracy and strategy diversity. Under a single-solution prompt, all models achieve high accuracy (95%-100%), but under a multiple-strategy prompt they recover substantially fewer strategies than the human reference set. Gemini, DeepSeek, GPT, and Claude generate 184, 152, 151, and 110 distinct valid strategies, respectively, with the largest gaps in Geometry and Number Theory. The models collectively produce 50 benchmark-novel valid strategies, indicating both incomplete coverage of human strategies and some capacity for alternative reasoning. A repeated-run robustness check on 20 problems shows diminishing gains in discovered strategies, with the strongest model recovering only 39 of 55 AoPS-reference strategies (71%) after three runs. These findings position strategy diversity as a complementary dimension for evaluating mathematical reasoning beyond answer correctness.
Diversity in LLM mathematical reasoning is critical for exploration, but common diversity metrics mostly capture surface-level variation rather than differences in how a problem is solved. We address this gap by introducing approach-level diversity: variation in strategies across correct solutions to the same problem. Using a human-calibrated LLM judge framework, we show that prior diversity measures are unreliable proxies for approach-level diversity, and this mismatch carries over to diversity-aware RLVR, where target metrics are preserved while approach-level diversity declines. Investigating when approach-level diversity helps and whether it can be directly induced, we find that approach-diverse candidate sets improve test-time scaling. However, optimizing an LLM judge diversity reward during training causes the policy to exploit judge-specific preferences rather than broaden its approaches, leaving direct optimization of approach-level diversity as an open problem. Together, our work introduces the notion of approach-level diversity and uncovers a systematic divergence between surface- and approach-level signals, marking a step toward LLMs that reason in genuinely diverse, human-like ways.
Large reasoning models (LRMs) have attracted increasing attention for their ability to solve complex mathematical problems by generating extended reasoning chains. In this work, we focus on two critical yet underexplored aspects of the reasoning process: reasoning transitions capturing the distinct transitions between reasoning steps and answer candidates reflecting the variety of solution paths produced by the model. We collectively define these two aspects as thinking schemata. We observe a correlation between the diversity of thinking schemata and model performance, which motivates us to enhance diversity as a means to further improve reasoning potential. To this end, we propose Diverse Schemata Policy Optimization (DiScO), a framework that first endows the model with schemata awareness, then encourages diversity through reinforcement learning, and further promotes diverse reasoning at inference time. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that DiScO consistently outperforms standard group relative policy optimization. Beyond accuracy, human-annotated analyses show that DiScO substantially improves the model's ability to recover from erroneous initial attempts. Overall, our work suggests the important role that diversity of the thinking schemata plays and points to scaling along the diversity dimension as a promising research direction.
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.