Missing Premise exacerbates Overthinking: Are Reasoning Models losing Critical Thinking Skill?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06514v2
• Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 02:36:28 GMT
• Title: Missing Premise exacerbates Overthinking: Are Reasoning Models losing Critical Thinking Skill?
• Authors: Chenrui Fan, Ming Li, Lichao Sun, Tianyi Zhou,
• Abstract summary: We find that the response length of reasoning LLMs drastically increases for ill-posed questions with missing premises (MiP)<n>This newly introduced scenario exacerbates the general overthinking issue to a large extent, which we name as the MiP-Overthinking.<n>Surprisingly, LLMs not specifically trained for reasoning exhibit much better performance on the MiP scenario, producing much shorter responses that quickly identify ill-posed queries.
• Score: 27.374491920521745
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We find that the response length of reasoning LLMs, whether trained by reinforcement learning or supervised learning, drastically increases for ill-posed questions with missing premises (MiP), ending up with redundant and ineffective thinking. This newly introduced scenario exacerbates the general overthinking issue to a large extent, which we name as the MiP-Overthinking. Such failures are against the ``test-time scaling law'' but have been widely observed on multiple datasets we curated with MiP, indicating the harm of cheap overthinking and a lack of critical thinking. Surprisingly, LLMs not specifically trained for reasoning exhibit much better performance on the MiP scenario, producing much shorter responses that quickly identify ill-posed queries. This implies a critical flaw of the current training recipe for reasoning LLMs, which does not encourage efficient thinking adequately, leading to the abuse of thinking patterns. To further investigate the reasons behind such failures, we conduct fine-grained analyses of the reasoning length, overthinking patterns, and location of critical thinking on different types of LLMs. Moreover, our extended ablation study reveals that the overthinking is contagious through the distillation of reasoning models' responses. These results improve the understanding of overthinking and shed novel insights into mitigating the problem.

Related papers

• Between Underthinking and Overthinking: An Empirical Study of Reasoning Length and correctness in LLMs [52.405085773954596]
  We find that large language models (LLMs) tend to overthink simple problems, generating unnecessarily long outputs, and underthink harder ones. This indicates that models might misjudge problem difficulty and fail to calibrate their response length appropriately. Experiments show that the generation length can be significantly reduced while maintaining acceptable accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T18:48:06Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks. We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs. We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)
• The Danger of Overthinking: Examining the Reasoning-Action Dilemma in Agentic Tasks [96.27754404942364]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) represent a breakthrough in AI problem-solving capabilities, but their effectiveness in interactive environments can be limited. This paper introduces and analyzes overthinking in LRMs. We observe three recurring patterns: Analysis Paralysis, Rogue Actions, and Premature Disengagement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T09:23:26Z)
• Thoughts Are All Over the Place: On the Underthinking of o1-Like LLMs [86.79757571440082]
  Large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI's o1 have demonstrated remarkable abilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>We identify a phenomenon we term underthinking, where o1-like LLMs frequently switch between different reasoning thoughts.<n>We propose a decoding strategy with thought switching penalty TIP that discourages premature transitions between thoughts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T18:58:18Z)
• Automatic Curriculum Expert Iteration for Reliable LLM Reasoning [60.60318625779015]
  Hallucinations (i.e., generating plausible but inaccurate content) and laziness (i.e. excessive refusals or defaulting to "I don't know") persist as major challenges in LLM reasoning. Current efforts to reduce hallucinations primarily focus on factual errors in knowledge-grounded tasks, often neglecting hallucinations related to faulty reasoning. We propose Automatic Curriculum Expert Iteration (Auto-CEI) to enhance LLM reasoning and align responses to the model's capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T05:43:07Z)
• Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models [31.238220405009617]
  Exploiting large language models (LLMs) to tackle reasoning has garnered growing attention.<n>It still remains highly challenging to achieve satisfactory results in complex logical problems, characterized by plenty of premises within the context and requiring multi-hop reasoning.<n>In this work, we first examine the mechanism from the perspective of information flow and reveal that LLMs confront difficulties akin to human-like cognitive biases when dealing with disordered and irrelevant content in reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T04:47:49Z)
• Tree of Uncertain Thoughts Reasoning for Large Language Models [19.926757833392212]
  We introduce the Tree of Uncertain Thoughts (TouT) - a reasoning framework tailored for Large Language Models (LLMs) Our TouT effectively leverages Monte Carlo Dropout to quantify uncertainty scores associated with LLMs' diverse local responses at these intermediate steps. We substantiate our approach with rigorous experiments on two demanding planning tasks: Game of 24 and Mini Crosswords.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T13:14:51Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

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.