A Comment On "The Illusion of Thinking": Reframing the Reasoning Cliff as an Agentic Gap

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18957v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 17:14:21 GMT
• Title: A Comment On "The Illusion of Thinking": Reframing the Reasoning Cliff as an Agentic Gap
• Authors: Sheraz Khan, Subha Madhavan, Kannan Natarajan,
• Abstract summary: We argue that the observed failure is not evidence of a fundamental cognitive boundary, but rather a predictable outcome of system-level constraints.<n>A model, initially declaring a puzzle impossible when confined to text-only generation, now employs agentic tools to not only solve it but also master variations of complexity far beyond the reasoning cliff it previously failed to surmount.
• Score: 0.39073867995073247
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The recent work by Shojaee et al. (2025), titled The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity, presents a compelling empirical finding, a reasoning cliff, where the performance of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) collapses beyond a specific complexity threshold, which the authors posit as an intrinsic scaling limitation of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. This commentary, while acknowledging the study's methodological rigor, contends that this conclusion is confounded by experimental artifacts. We argue that the observed failure is not evidence of a fundamental cognitive boundary, but rather a predictable outcome of system-level constraints in the static, text-only evaluation paradigm, including tool use restrictions, context window recall issues, the absence of crucial cognitive baselines, inadequate statistical reporting, and output generation limits. We reframe this performance collapse through the lens of an agentic gap, asserting that the models are not failing at reasoning, but at execution within a profoundly restrictive interface. We empirically substantiate this critique by demonstrating a striking reversal. A model, initially declaring a puzzle impossible when confined to text-only generation, now employs agentic tools to not only solve it but also master variations of complexity far beyond the reasoning cliff it previously failed to surmount. Additionally, our empirical analysis of tool-enabled models like o4-mini and GPT-4o reveals a hierarchy of agentic reasoning, from simple procedural execution to complex meta-cognitive self-correction, which has significant implications for how we define and measure machine intelligence. The illusion of thinking attributed to LRMs is less a reasoning deficit and more a consequence of an otherwise capable mind lacking the tools for action.

Related papers

• 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)
• Comment on The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [0.0]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit "accuracy collapse" on planning puzzles beyond certain complexity thresholds.<n>We demonstrate that their findings primarily reflect experimental design limitations rather than fundamental reasoning failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T21:16:53Z)
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [16.266145641151375]
  Large Reasoning Models generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers.<n>We show that LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities.<n>We also investigate the reasoning traces in more depth, studying the patterns of explored solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T22:42:29Z)
• Let LLMs Break Free from Overthinking via Self-Braking Tuning [60.08396797526657]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities by generating longer chains of thought.<n>This performance gain comes at the cost of a substantial increase in redundant reasoning during the generation process.<n>We propose a novel framework, Self-Braking Tuning (SBT), which tackles overthinking from the perspective of allowing the model to regulate its own reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T16:53:40Z)
• The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learning [39.613595533503144]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely recognized for its ability to enhance reasoning capabilities in large language models.<n>We show that CoT consistently underperforms direct answering across varying model scales and benchmark complexities.<n>Our analysis uncovers a fundamental explicit-implicit duality driving CoT's performance in pattern-based ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T13:51:06Z)
• From Chaos to Order: The Atomic Reasoner Framework for Fine-grained Reasoning in Large Language Models [46.02816479205161]
  We present textbfAtomic Reasoner (textbfAR), a cognitive inference strategy that enables fine-grained reasoning.<n>AR decomposes the reasoning process into atomic cognitive units, employing a cognitive routing mechanism.<n>Results show AR's superior reasoning capabilities without the computational burden of exhaustive solution searches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T08:34:53Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Understanding, Predicting and Better Resolving Q-Value Divergence in Offline-RL [86.0987896274354]
  We first identify a fundamental pattern, self-excitation, as the primary cause of Q-value estimation divergence in offline RL. We then propose a novel Self-Excite Eigenvalue Measure (SEEM) metric to measure the evolving property of Q-network at training. For the first time, our theory can reliably decide whether the training will diverge at an early stage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-06T17:57:44Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)

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.