Evaluating Grounded Reasoning by Code-Assisted Large Language Models for Mathematics

Assisting LLMs with code generation improved their performance on mathematical reasoning tasks. However, the evaluation of code-assisted LLMs is generally restricted to execution correctness, lacking a rigorous evaluation of their generated programs. In this work, we bridge this gap by conducting an in-depth analysis of code-assisted LLMs' generated programs in response to math reasoning tasks. Our evaluation focuses on the extent to which LLMs ground their programs to math rules, and how that affects their end performance. For this purpose, we assess the generations of five different LLMs, on two different math datasets, both manually and automatically. Our results reveal that the distribution of grounding depends on LLMs' capabilities and the difficulty of math problems. Furthermore, mathematical grounding is more effective for closed-source models, while open-source models fail to employ math rules in their solutions correctly. On MATH500, the percentage of grounded programs decreased to half, while the ungrounded generations doubled in comparison to ASDiv grade-school problems. Our work highlights the need for in-depth evaluation beyond execution accuracy metrics, toward a better understanding of code-assisted LLMs' capabilities and limits in the math domain.