Exploring the Necessity of Reasoning in LLM-based Agent Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11074v2
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 07:23:00 GMT
• Title: Exploring the Necessity of Reasoning in LLM-based Agent Scenarios
• Authors: Xueyang Zhou, Guiyao Tie, Guowen Zhang, Weidong Wang, Zhigang Zuo, Di Wu, Duanfeng Chu, Pan Zhou, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, Lichao Sun,
• Abstract summary: We propose the LaRMA framework, encompassing nine tasks across Tool Usage, Plan Design, and Problem Solving.<n>Our findings address four research questions: LRMs surpass LLMs in reasoning-intensive tasks like Plan Design, leveraging iterative reflection for superior outcomes.<n>LRMs' enhanced reasoning incurs higher computational costs, prolonged processing, and behavioral challenges, including overthinking and fact-ignoring tendencies.
• Score: 74.35956310688164
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rise of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) signifies a paradigm shift toward advanced computational reasoning. Yet, this progress disrupts traditional agent frameworks, traditionally anchored by execution-oriented Large Language Models (LLMs). To explore this transformation, we propose the LaRMA framework, encompassing nine tasks across Tool Usage, Plan Design, and Problem Solving, assessed with three top LLMs (e.g., Claude3.5-sonnet) and five leading LRMs (e.g., DeepSeek-R1). Our findings address four research questions: LRMs surpass LLMs in reasoning-intensive tasks like Plan Design, leveraging iterative reflection for superior outcomes; LLMs excel in execution-driven tasks such as Tool Usage, prioritizing efficiency; hybrid LLM-LRM configurations, pairing LLMs as actors with LRMs as reflectors, optimize agent performance by blending execution speed with reasoning depth; and LRMs' enhanced reasoning incurs higher computational costs, prolonged processing, and behavioral challenges, including overthinking and fact-ignoring tendencies. This study fosters deeper inquiry into LRMs' balance of deep thinking and overthinking, laying a critical foundation for future agent design advancements.

Related papers

• Thinking Isn't an Illusion: Overcoming the Limitations of Reasoning Models via Tool Augmentations [11.503915439591735]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are designed to output a step-by-step thinking process before arriving at a final answer to handle complex reasoning tasks.<n>Recent empirical studies suggest that LLMs without explicit reasoning actually outperform LRMs on tasks with low or high complexity.<n>We investigate whether the limitations of LRMs persist when tool augmentations are introduced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T17:04:20Z)
• Iterative Self-Incentivization Empowers Large Language Models as Agentic Searchers [74.17516978246152]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely integrated into information retrieval to advance traditional techniques.<n>We propose EXSEARCH, an agentic search framework, where the LLM learns to retrieve useful information as the reasoning unfolds.<n>Experiments on four knowledge-intensive benchmarks show that EXSEARCH substantially outperforms baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T15:27:55Z)
• Reasoning Meets Personalization: Unleashing the Potential of Large Reasoning Model for Personalized Generation [21.89080753903469]
  We present the first systematic evaluation of large reasoning models (LRMs) for personalization tasks.<n>Our analysis identifies three key limitations: divergent thinking, misalignment of response formats, and ineffective use of retrieved information.<n>We propose Reinforced Reasoning for Personalization (model), a novel framework that incorporates a hierarchical reasoning thought template to guide LRMs in generating structured outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T07:30:13Z)
• Benchmarking Spatiotemporal Reasoning in LLMs and Reasoning Models: Capabilities and Challenges [4.668749313973097]
  This paper systematically evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) across three levels of reasoning complexity.<n>We curate 26 challenges where models answer directly or by Python Code Interpreter.<n>LRMs show robust performance across tasks with various levels of difficulty, often competing or surpassing traditional first-principle-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T18:32:35Z)
• CoT-RAG: Integrating Chain of Thought and Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Enhance Reasoning in Large Language Models [14.784841713647682]
  CoT-RAG is a novel reasoning framework with three key designs. It features Knowledge Graph-driven CoT Generation, Learnable Knowledge Case-aware RAG, and Pseudo-Program Prompting Execution. Compared with the-state-of-the-art methods, CoT-RAG exhibits a significant accuracy improvement, ranging from 4.0% to 23.0%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T07:55:09Z)
• Revisiting Prompt Optimization with Large Reasoning Models-A Case Study on Event Extraction [8.88001387249786]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) such as DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various reasoning tasks. Their strong capability to generate and reason over intermediate thoughts has led to arguments that they may no longer require extensive prompt engineering or optimization to interpret human instructions. In this work, we aim to systematically study this open question, using the structured task of event extraction for a case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T00:53:59Z)
• ReaRAG: Knowledge-guided Reasoning Enhances Factuality of Large Reasoning Models with Iterative Retrieval Augmented Generation [38.64751082999587]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit remarkable reasoning abilities but rely primarily on parametric knowledge, limiting factual accuracy. We propose ReaRAG, a factuality-enhanced reasoning model that explores diverse queries without excessive iterations. Our study enhances LRMs' factuality while effectively integrating robust reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T17:44:18Z)
• Can Reasoning Models Reason about Hardware? An Agentic HLS Perspective [18.791753740931185]
  OpenAI o3-mini and DeepSeek-R1 use enhanced reasoning through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) This paper investigates whether reasoning LLMs can address challenges in High-Level Synthesis (HLS) design space exploration and optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T01:21:39Z)
• OR-LLM-Agent: Automating Modeling and Solving of Operations Research Optimization Problems with Reasoning LLM [15.260794368585692]
  We propose OR-LLM-Agent, an AI agent framework built on reasoning LLMs for automated Operations Research problem solving.<n>We show that OR-LLM-Agent utilizing DeepSeek-R1 in its framework outperforms advanced methods, including GPT-o3, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-R1, and ORLM, by at least 7% in accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T03:40:50Z)
• ReMA: Learning to Meta-think for LLMs with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [54.787341008881036]
  We introduce Reinforced Meta-thinking Agents (ReMA), a novel framework that leverages Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) to elicit meta-thinking behaviors.<n>ReMA decouples the reasoning process into two hierarchical agents: a high-level meta-thinking agent responsible for generating strategic oversight and plans, and a low-level reasoning agent for detailed executions.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that ReMA outperforms single-agent RL baselines on complex reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T16:05:31Z)
• Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks. LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning. We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z)
• Improve Temporal Awareness of LLMs for Sequential Recommendation [61.723928508200196]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive zero-shot abilities in solving a wide range of general-purpose tasks. LLMs fall short in recognizing and utilizing temporal information, rendering poor performance in tasks that require an understanding of sequential data. We propose three prompting strategies to exploit temporal information within historical interactions for LLM-based sequential recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-05T00:21:26Z)
• DRDT: Dynamic Reflection with Divergent Thinking for LLM-based Sequential Recommendation [53.62727171363384]
  We introduce a novel reasoning principle: Dynamic Reflection with Divergent Thinking. Our methodology is dynamic reflection, a process that emulates human learning through probing, critiquing, and reflecting. We evaluate our approach on three datasets using six pre-trained LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T16:41:22Z)
• Let's reward step by step: Step-Level reward model as the Navigators for Reasoning [64.27898739929734]
  Process-Supervised Reward Model (PRM) furnishes LLMs with step-by-step feedback during the training phase. We propose a greedy search algorithm that employs the step-level feedback from PRM to optimize the reasoning pathways explored by LLMs. To explore the versatility of our approach, we develop a novel method to automatically generate step-level reward dataset for coding tasks and observed similar improved performance in the code generation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T05:21:50Z)
• Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
  In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training. We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion. The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.