Skip to content
← Back to explorer

LLMs Know More About Numbers than They Can Say

Fengting Yuchi, Li Du, Jason Eisner · Feb 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.35

Abstract

Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are? We probe the hidden states of several smaller open-source LLMs. A single linear projection of an appropriate hidden layer encodes the log-magnitudes of both kinds of numerals, allowing us to recover the numbers with relative error of about 2.3% (on restricted synthetic text) or 19.06% (on scientific papers). Furthermore, the hidden state after reading a pair of numerals encodes their ranking, with a linear classifier achieving over 90% accuracy. Yet surprisingly, when explicitly asked to rank the same pairs of numerals, these LLMs achieve only 50-70% accuracy, with worse performance for models whose probes are less effective. Finally, we show that incorporating the classifier probe's log-loss as an auxiliary objective during finetuning brings an additional 3.22% improvement in verbalized accuracy over base models, demonstrating that improving models' internal magnitude representations can enhance their numerical reasoning capabilities. Our code is available at https://github.com/VCY019/Numeracy-Probing.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.35 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Furthermore, the hidden state after reading a pair of numerals encodes their ranking, with a linear classifier achieving over 90% accuracy.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Not found

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Ranking
  • Expertise required: Math, Coding
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.35
  • Known cautions: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Although state-of-the-art LLMs can solve math problems, we find that they make errors on numerical comparisons with mixed notation: "Which is larger, $5.7 \times 10^2$ or $580$?" This raises a fundamental question: Do LLMs even know how big these numbers are?
  • We probe the hidden states of several smaller open-source LLMs.
  • A single linear projection of an appropriate hidden layer encodes the log-magnitudes of both kinds of numerals, allowing us to recover the numbers with relative error of about 2.3% (on restricted synthetic text) or 19.06% (on scientific papers).

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning MATH.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

MATH Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • A single linear projection of an appropriate hidden layer encodes the log-magnitudes of both kinds of numerals, allowing us to recover the numbers with relative error of about 2.3% (on restricted synthetic text) or 19.06% (on scientific…
  • Furthermore, the hidden state after reading a pair of numerals encodes their ranking, with a linear classifier achieving over 90% accuracy.
  • Finally, we show that incorporating the classifier probe's log-loss as an auxiliary objective during finetuning brings an additional 3.22% improvement in verbalized accuracy over base models, demonstrating that improving models' internal…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now