Reasoning Large Language Model Errors Arise from Hallucinating Critical Problem Features

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12151v1
• Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 21:55:12 GMT
• Title: Reasoning Large Language Model Errors Arise from Hallucinating Critical Problem Features
• Authors: Alex Heyman, Joel Zylberberg,
• Abstract summary: We test o1-mini, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, and Grok 3 Mini Beta on graph coloring as a variable-complexity constraint-satisfaction logic problem.<n>We find evidence from both error rate comparisons and CoT/explanation text analysis that RLLMs are prone to hallucinate edges not specified in the prompt's description of the graph.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models have recently made great strides in reasoning task performance through chain-of-thought (CoT) strategies trained via reinforcement learning; however, these "reasoning large language models" (RLLMs) remain imperfect reasoners, and understanding the frequencies and causes of their failure modes is important for both users and developers. We test o1-mini, o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, and Grok 3 Mini Beta on graph coloring as a variable-complexity constraint-satisfaction logic problem, and find evidence from both error rate comparisons and CoT/explanation text analysis that RLLMs are prone to hallucinate edges not specified in the prompt's description of the graph. This phenomenon persists across multiple problem complexity levels and semantic frames, and it appears to account for a significant fraction of the incorrect answers from every tested model, and the vast majority of them for some models. Our results indicate that RLLMs may possess broader issues with misrepresentation of problem specifics, and we offer suggestions for design choices to mitigate this weakness.

Related papers

• Inverse Scaling in Test-Time Compute [51.16323216811257]
  Extending the reasoning length of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) deteriorates performance.<n>We identify five distinct failure modes when models reason for longer.<n>These findings suggest that while test-time compute scaling remains promising for improving model capabilities, it may inadvertently reinforce problematic reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T00:06:13Z)
• TL;DR: Too Long, Do Re-weighting for Efficient LLM Reasoning Compression [55.37723860832064]
  We propose a dynamic ratio-based training pipeline that does not rely on sophisticated data annotations.<n>We validate our approach across models on DeepSeek-R1-Distill-7B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-14B and on a diverse set of benchmarks with varying difficulty levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:23:41Z)
• CoThink: Token-Efficient Reasoning via Instruct Models Guiding Reasoning Models [56.40065909544213]
  Large language models (LLMs) benefit from increased test-time compute, a phenomenon known as test-time scaling.<n>However, reasoning-optimized models often overthink even simple problems, producing excessively verbose outputs and leading to low token efficiency.<n>We identify two key causes of this verbosity: (1) reinforcement learning reduces the information density of forward reasoning, and (2) backward chain-of thought training encourages redundant and often unnecessary verification steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:24:45Z)
• Climbing the Ladder of Reasoning: What LLMs Can-and Still Can't-Solve after SFT? [59.418994222096885]
  We conduct a detailed analysis of model performance on the AIME24 dataset.<n>We categorize questions into four tiers (Easy, Medium, Hard, and Extremely Hard)<n>We find that progression from Easy to Medium tier requires adopting an R1 reasoning style with minimal SFT-1K instances.<n>Exh-level questions present a fundamentally different challenge; they require unconventional problem-solving skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T03:39:38Z)
• Do Larger Language Models Imply Better Reasoning? A Pretraining Scaling Law for Reasoning [89.17086632436363]
  We introduce a synthetic multihop reasoning environment designed to replicate the structure and distribution of real-world large-scale knowledge graphs.<n>Our reasoning task involves completing missing edges in the graph, which requires advanced multi-hop reasoning and mimics real-world reasoning scenarios.<n>To predict the optimal model size for a specific knowledge graph, we find an empirical scaling that linearly maps the knowledge graph search entropy to the optimal model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T17:57:22Z)
• Unveiling Reasoning Thresholds in Language Models: Scaling, Fine-Tuning, and Interpretability through Attention Maps [3.8936716676293917]
  This study investigates the in-context learning capabilities of various decoder-only transformer-based language models with different model sizes and training data.<n>We identify a critical parameter threshold (1.6 billion), beyond which reasoning performance improves significantly in tasks such as commonsense reasoning in multiple-choice question answering and deductive reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T00:48:32Z)
• Evaluating the Systematic Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models through Graph Coloring [0.0]
  We investigate graph coloring as a means of evaluating an LLM's capacities for systematic step-by-step reasoning and possibility space exploration.<n>We test Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama 3.1 405B, Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, o1-mini, and DeepSeek-R1 on a dataset of $k$-coloring problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T22:27:02Z)
• The Jumping Reasoning Curve? Tracking the Evolution of Reasoning Performance in GPT-[n] and o-[n] Models on Multimodal Puzzles [29.214813685163218]
  OpenAI's releases of o1 and o3 mark a paradigm shift in Large Language Models towards advanced reasoning capabilities.<n>We track the evolution of the GPT-[n] and o-[n] series models on challenging multimodal puzzles.<n>The superior performance of o1 comes at nearly 750 times the computational cost of GPT-4o, raising concerns about its efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T05:47:04Z)
• Reasoning Paths Optimization: Learning to Reason and Explore From Diverse Paths [69.39559168050923]
  We introduce Reasoning Paths Optimization (RPO), which enables learning to reason and explore from diverse paths. Our approach encourages favorable branches at each reasoning step while penalizing unfavorable ones, enhancing the model's overall problem-solving performance. We focus on multi-step reasoning tasks, such as math word problems and science-based exam questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T06:37:25Z)
• WorldSense: A Synthetic Benchmark for Grounded Reasoning in Large Language Models [35.088946378980914]
  We run our benchmark on three state-of-the-art chat-LLMs (GPT3.5, GPT4 and Llama2-chat) We show that these models make errors even with as few as three objects. Errors persist even with chain-of-thought prompting and in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T15:38:17Z)
• Exposing Attention Glitches with Flip-Flop Language Modeling [55.0688535574859]
  This work identifies and analyzes the phenomenon of attention glitches in large language models. We introduce flip-flop language modeling (FFLM), a family of synthetic benchmarks designed to probe the extrapolative behavior of neural language models. We find that Transformer FFLMs suffer from a long tail of sporadic reasoning errors, some of which we can eliminate using various regularization techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T17:44:35Z)
• Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Language Models [94.70184390935661]
  We propose Multimodal-CoT that incorporates language (text) and vision (images) modalities into a two-stage framework. Experimental results on ScienceQA and A-OKVQA benchmark datasets show the effectiveness of our proposed approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T07:51:19Z)

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.