arXiv:2606. 26502v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) take longer on harder problems, just as humans do.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
Large reasoning models (LRMs) take longer on harder problems, just as humans do. This surface similarity hides an opposite pattern within items.
The paper investigates whether the reasoning process in large language models mitigates or exacerbates bias. Using a within-model ablation on three high-stakes datasets (Adult, COMPAS, Credit) across three 32‑B models, the authors find that reasoning resolves some counterfactual fairness flips but creates roughly five times as many new flips at high confidence. They introduce two dynamic tools—Counterfactual Depth Probability Gap and Bias Transition Matrix—to trace how bias propagates and amplifies during reasoning depth and to explain the asymmetric dual effect.
arXiv:2506. 21571v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), which autonomously produce a reasoning Chain of Thought (CoT) before producing final responses, offer a promising approach to interpreting and monitoring model behaviors.
arXiv:2607. 16451v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chat models sometimes commit to an answer and then produce reasoning that justifies it rather than deriving it -- even when the answer contradicts a task premise.
arXiv:2608.28623v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large multimodal reasoning models (LMRMs) are increasingly capable, largely through generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before ans...
arXiv:2607. 18114v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern LLMs are alarmingly susceptible to surprisingly simple immaterial changes of input prompts: a casual hint, an incorrectly labeled few-shot example, or a fake prior assistant turn often flips an originally correct answer.