From Blind Solvers to Logical Thinkers: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Integrity on Faulty Mathematical Problems

TL;DR

This paper introduces FaultyMath, a benchmark dataset to evaluate whether large language models can identify logical flaws in mathematical problems, revealing that most models act as blind solvers rather than logical thinkers.

Contribution

The paper presents a new diverse dataset and comprehensive evaluation framework to assess LLMs' ability to detect logical inconsistencies in math problems, highlighting current limitations.

Findings

Most LLMs act as blind solvers without deeper reasoning.

Models struggle to reliably detect faulty math problems.

Hints and explanations have limited impact on improving model reasoning.

Abstract

Consider the math problem: "Lily received 3 cookies from her best friend yesterday and ate 5 for breakfast. Today, her friend gave her 3 more cookies. How many cookies does Lily have now?" Many large language models (LLMs) in previous research approach this problem by calculating the answer "1" using the equation "3 - 5 + 3." However, from a human perspective, we recognize the inherent flaw in this problem: Lily cannot eat 5 cookies if she initially only had 3. This discrepancy prompts a key question: Are current LLMs merely Blind Solver that apply mathematical operations without deeper reasoning, or can they function as Logical Thinker capable of identifying logical inconsistencies? To explore this question, we propose a benchmark dataset, FaultyMath, which includes faulty math problems of rich diversity: i) multiple mathematical categories, e.g., algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., ii) varying levels of difficulty, and iii) different origins of faultiness -- ranging from violations of common sense and ambiguous statements to mathematical contradictions and more. We evaluate a broad spectrum of LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and math-specialized models, using FaultyMath across three dimensions: (i) How accurately can the models detect faulty math problems without being explicitly prompted to do so? (ii) When provided with hints -- either correct or misleading -- about the validity of the problems, to what extent do LLMs adapt to become reliable Logical Thinker? (iii) How trustworthy are the explanations generated by LLMs when they recognize a math problem as flawed? Through extensive experimentation and detailed analysis, our results demonstrate that existing LLMs largely function as Blind Solver and fall short of the reasoning capabilities required to perform as Logical Thinker.