Failure Modes of Large Language Models on Research-Level Mathematics: A Taxonomy and an Empirical Characterisation
The "First Proof" benchmark [1] posed ten research-level mathematics questions to the strongest publicly available LLMs and found them consistently wrong-not silent, but confidently, fluently wrong. This paper asks why. Working from the per-question post-mortems in First Proof's Appendix A, I identify four failure modes: citation fabrication (F1), premise smuggling (F2), silent problem reformulation (F3), and local-to-global compatibility gaps (F4). I then audit eight one-shot proofs generated by Gemini 2.5 Flash on Questions 1, 2, and 5 of the benchmark, using two instruments built specifically to surface F1 and F2. The central finding is uncomfortable for anyone who sees retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) as the obvious fix: not one of the eight proofs contained a confirmed fabricated citation, yet every single one contained at least one load-bearing claim asserted as a "fundamental result" or "standard argument" with no justification attached. That failure mode-F2, premise smuggling-is invisible to citation verification by design. A premise-audit instrument I introduce flags it at 100% precision (5/5 judge-confirmed flags are true positives) and 50% proof-level recall in this corpus. The taxonomy and the audit together suggest that the right long-term objective is building inference-time pipelines that prevent these failure modes from occurring, not just detecting them after the fact. Index Terms--Large language models, mathematical reasoning, hallucination, premise smuggling, failure-mode taxonomy.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Mathematical ReasoningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
MTAVG-Bench 2.0: Diagnosing Failure Modes of Cinematic Expressiveness in Multi-Talker Audio-Video Generation
In recent years, Multi-Talker Audio-Video Generation (MTAVG) models have shown promising performance on fundamental metrics such as lip-sync and audio-visual alignment. However, these metrics remain insufficient for asse…
Video GenerationAI Alignment Strategies from a Risk Perspective: Independent Safety Mechanisms or Shared Failures?
AI alignment research aims to develop techniques to ensure that AI systems do not cause harm. However, every alignment technique has failure modes, which are conditions in which there is a non-negligible chance that the …
Phare: A Safety Probe for Large Language Models
Ensuring the safety of large language models (LLMs) is critical for responsible deployment, yet existing evaluations often prioritize performance over identifying failure modes. We introduce Phare, a multilingual diagnos…
DiagnosticHallucinationSensitivityRIFT: A RubrIc Failure Mode Taxonomy and Automated Diagnostics
Rubric-based evaluation is widely used in LLM benchmarks and training pipelines for open-ended, less verifiable tasks. While prior work has demonstrated the effectiveness of rubrics using downstream signals such as reinf…
Reinforcement LearningInstruction FollowingCode GenerationFailure Modes in LLM Systems: A System-Level Taxonomy for Reliable AI Applications
Large language models (LLMs) are being rapidly integrated into decision-support tools, automation workflows, and AI-enabled software systems. However, their behavior in production environments remains poorly understood, …