arXiv AI

Superficial Reflection or Genuine Thought? A Fine-Grained Cognitive Analysis of Large Reasoning Models

arXiv AI
Jun 9

MixReasoning: Switching Modes to Think

arXiv:2510. 06052v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning models enhance performance by tackling problems in a step-by-step manner, decomposing them into sub-problems and exploring long chains of thought before producing an answer.

By Haiquan Lu, Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, Qi Li, Xinchao Wang
arXiv AI
Jun 3

Thinking Past the Answer: Evaluating Harmful Overthinking in Large Reasoning Models

arXiv:2606. 02835v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined.

By Simone Caldarella, Davide Talon, Rahaf Aljundi, Elisa Ricci, Massimiliano Mancini
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Thought without systematicity? Evaluating reasoning models on rule induction tasks

The paper investigates whether current reasoning models exhibit systematicity—the idea that understanding one concept should extend to closely related variations—by extending rule induction tasks from cognitive science. Using task isomorphisms like recombination and substitution, the authors generate structurally equivalent task variants and test models on them. Results show that while models can solve the original tasks, they frequently fail on these equivalent variants, indicating a lack of systematicity in their reasoning abilities.

By Simon Schug, Brenden M. Lake
arXiv AI
Aug 17

The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI

arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.

By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

TRACES: Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost-Efficient Early-Stopping

TRACES (Tagging Reasoning Steps for Adaptive Cost‑Efficient Early‑Stopping) is a lightweight framework that tags reasoning steps of large‑language models in real time, enabling adaptive, cost‑efficient early stopping during inference. By monitoring the types of steps generated, the method identifies when models shift their reasoning after arriving at a correct answer, allowing for interpretable stopping criteria. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks (MATH500, GSM8K, AIME) and knowledge benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA) show token reductions of 20–50% while preserving accuracy, with more conservative thresholds needed for harder tasks such as BeyondAIME and IMO AnswerBench.

By Yannis Belkhiter, Seshu Tirupathi, Giulio Zizzo, John D. Kelleher