BARREL: Boundary-Aware Reasoning for Factual and Reliable LRMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13529v1
• Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 07:27:34 GMT
• Title: BARREL: Boundary-Aware Reasoning for Factual and Reliable LRMs
• Abstract summary: We propose BARREL, a framework that promotes concise and boundary-aware factual reasoning.<n>Our experiments show that BARREL-training increases the reliability of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B from 39.33% to 61.48%.
• Score: 87.24843751412783
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have shown impressive capabilities in mathematical and logical reasoning. However, current LRMs rarely admit ignorance or respond with "I don't know". Instead, they often produce incorrect answers while showing undue confidence, raising concerns about their factual reliability. In this work, we identify two pathological reasoning patterns characterized by overthinking that contribute to the overconfident and incorrect answers: last-minute guessing and second-thought spiraling. To address these issues, we propose BARREL-a novel framework that promotes concise and boundary-aware factual reasoning. Our experiments show that BARREL-training increases the reliability of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B from 39.33% to 61.48%, while still achieving accuracy comparable to models finetuned on reasoning data generated by R1. These results demonstrate that our pilot study is inspiring to build more reliable and factual System 2 LRMs.

Related papers

• An Enigma of Artificial Reason: Investigating the Production-Evaluation Gap in Large Reasoning Models [9.017619024241913]
  We show that large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems.<n>We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers.<n>Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T21:46:52Z)
• When Is Thinking Enough? Early Exit via Sufficiency Assessment for Efficient Reasoning [52.21239821135325]
  We introduce Dynamic Thought Sufficiency in Reasoning (DTSR), a novel framework for efficient reasoning.<n>Inspired by human metacognition, DTSR operates in two stages: Reflection Signal Monitoring, and Thought Sufficiency Check.<n>DTSR reduces reasoning length by 28.9%-34.9% with minimal performance loss, effectively mitigating overthinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T07:56:28Z)
• RFEval: Benchmarking Reasoning Faithfulness under Counterfactual Reasoning Intervention in Large Reasoning Models [5.733004743054914]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit strong performance, yet often produce rationales that sound plausible but fail to reflect their true decision process.<n>We introduce a formal framework for reasoning faithfulness, defined by two testable conditions.<n>We present RFEval, a benchmark of 7,186 instances that probes faithfulness via controlled, output-level counterfactual interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T03:49:37Z)
• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• Finding RELIEF: Shaping Reasoning Behavior without Reasoning Supervision via Belief Engineering [25.183793455770978]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success in complex problem-solving, yet they often suffer from computational redundancy or reasoning unfaithfulness.<n>We propose Reasoning Belief Engineering (RELIEF), a framework that shapes LRM behavior by aligning the model's self-concept with a target belief blueprint.<n>RELIEF internalizes desired traits by fine-tuning on synthesized, self-reflective question-answering pairs that affirm the target belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:07:01Z)
• Consistency Is Not Always Correct: Towards Understanding the Role of Exploration in Post-Training Reasoning [75.79451512757844]
  Foundation models exhibit broad knowledge but limited task-specific reasoning.<n> RLVR and inference scaling motivate post-training strategies such as RLVR and inference scaling.<n>We show that RLVR induces a squeezing effect, reducing reasoning entropy and forgetting some correct paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T18:25:26Z)
• MR-Align: Meta-Reasoning Informed Factuality Alignment for Large Reasoning Models [43.872922223495586]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong capabilities in complex reasoning, yet their marginal gains on evidence-dependent factual questions are limited.<n>We find this limitation is partially attributable to a reasoning-answer hit gap, where the model identifies the correct facts during reasoning but fails to incorporate them into the final response.<n>We propose MR-ALIGN, a framework that enhances factuality without relying on external verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:00:54Z)
• On the Self-awareness of Large Reasoning Models' Capability Boundaries [46.74014595035246]
  We investigate whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) possess self-awareness of capability boundaries.<n>For black-box models, reasoning expressions reveal boundary signals, with accelerated growing confidence trajectory for solvable problems but convergent uncertainty trajectory for unsolvable ones.<n>For white-box models, we show that hidden states of the last input token encode boundary information, with solvable and unsolvable problems linearly separable even before reasoning begins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:40:47Z)
• Reasoning or Retrieval? A Study of Answer Attribution on Large Reasoning Models [15.797612515648412]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit unprecedented capabilities in solving complex problems through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Recent studies reveal that their final answers often contradict their own reasoning traces.<n>We hypothesize that this inconsistency stems from two competing mechanisms for generating answers: CoT reasoning and memory retrieval.<n>We introduce FARL, a novel fine-tuning framework that integrates memory unlearning with reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T01:13:33Z)
• Your Models Have Thought Enough: Training Large Reasoning Models to Stop Overthinking [50.97239453902612]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved impressive performance on challenging tasks, yet their deep reasoning often incurs substantial computational costs.<n>Inspired by Evidence Accumulation Models, we find that LRMs have accumulated sufficient information early in reasoning, making further reasoning steps redundant.<n>We propose Just-Enough Thinking (JET), which trains models to proactively terminate unnecessary reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T16:25:06Z)
• Reasoning Models Can be Easily Hacked by Fake Reasoning Bias [59.79548223686273]
  We introduce THEATER, a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate Reasoning Theater Bias (RTB)<n>We investigate six bias types including Simple Cues and Fake Chain-of-Thought.<n>We identify'shallow reasoning'-plausible but flawed arguments-as the most potent form of RTB.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T09:06:10Z)
• Lost at the Beginning of Reasoning [82.18834329384514]
  We show that the first reasoning step exerts a disproportionately large influence on the final prediction.<n>We propose an efficient sampling strategy that leverages a reward model to identify and retain high-quality first reasoning steps.<n>We introduce a new benchmark specifically constructed with deliberately flawed first reasoning steps to systematically evaluate model self-correction capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:53:57Z)
• Reasoning Model Unlearning: Forgetting Traces, Not Just Answers, While Preserving Reasoning Skills [32.96074934023323]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have enabled strong chain-of-thought (CoT) generation through test-time computation.<n>We show that conventional unlearning algorithms, originally designed for non-reasoning models, are inadequate for LRMs.<n>We propose Reasoning-aware Representation Misdirection for Unlearning ($R2MU$), a novel method that effectively suppresses sensitive reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T20:54:23Z)
• Are Reasoning Models More Prone to Hallucination? [70.04436965009072]
  Recently evolved large reasoning models (LRMs) show powerful performance in solving complex tasks with long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capability.<n>Are reasoning models more prone to hallucination?<n>This paper addresses the question from three perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:53:41Z)
• Don't "Overthink" Passage Reranking: Is Reasoning Truly Necessary? [60.725923225442095]
  We compare reasoning-based pointwise rerankers (ReasonRR) to standard, non-reasoning pointwise rerankers (StandardRR) under identical training conditions.<n>We find that ReasonRR-NoReason is surprisingly more effective than ReasonRR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T16:41:37Z)
• Thinking Out Loud: Do Reasoning Models Know When They're Right? [19.776645881640178]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>We investigate how LRMs interact with other model behaviors by analyzing verbalized confidence.<n>We find that reasoning models may possess a diminished awareness of their own knowledge boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T03:58:19Z)
• SEAL: Steerable Reasoning Calibration of Large Language Models for Free [58.190800043449336]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated compelling capabilities for complex reasoning tasks via the extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning mechanism.<n>Recent studies reveal substantial redundancy in the CoT reasoning traces, which negatively impacts model performance.<n>We introduce SEAL, a training-free approach that seamlessly calibrates the CoT process, improving accuracy while demonstrating significant efficiency gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T02:42:07Z)
• 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.<n>We propose ReaRAG, a factuality-enhanced reasoning model that explores diverse queries without excessive iterations.<n>Our study enhances LRMs' factuality while effectively integrating robust reasoning for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T17:44:18Z)
• R1-Zero's "Aha Moment" in Visual Reasoning on a 2B Non-SFT Model [70.77691645678804]
  We present the first successful replication of emergent characteristics for multimodal reasoning on only a non-SFT 2B model.<n>Our model achieves 59.47% accuracy on CVBench, outperforming the base model by approximately 30% and exceeding both SFT setting by 2%.<n>In addition, we share our failed attempts and insights in attempting to achieve R1-like reasoning using RL with instruct models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T04:21:47Z)
• Self-Contradictory Reasoning Evaluation and Detection [31.452161594896978]
  We investigate self-contradictory (Self-Contra) reasoning, where the model reasoning does not support its answers. We find that LLMs often contradict themselves in reasoning tasks involving contextual information understanding or commonsense. We find that GPT-4 can detect Self-Contra with a 52.2% F1 score, much lower compared to 66.7% for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T06:22:17Z)
• Adversarial Robustness under Long-Tailed Distribution [93.50792075460336]
  Adversarial robustness has attracted extensive studies recently by revealing the vulnerability and intrinsic characteristics of deep networks. In this work we investigate the adversarial vulnerability as well as defense under long-tailed distributions. We propose a clean yet effective framework, RoBal, which consists of two dedicated modules, a scale-invariant and data re-balancing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-06T17:53:08Z)

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.