Reasoning Models Can be Easily Hacked by Fake Reasoning Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13758v2
• Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 02:20:24 GMT
• Title: Reasoning Models Can be Easily Hacked by Fake Reasoning Bias
• Authors: Qian Wang, Yubo Fan, Zhenheng Tang, Nuo Chen, Wenxuan Wang, Bingsheng He,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 59.79548223686273
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and o1 are increasingly used as automated evaluators, raising critical questions about their vulnerability to the aesthetics of reasoning in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We introduce THEATER, a comprehensive benchmark to systematically evaluate this vulnerability-termed Reasoning Theater Bias (RTB)-by comparing LLMs and LRMs across subjective preference and objective factual datasets. Through investigation of six bias types including Simple Cues and Fake Chain-of-Thought, we uncover three key findings: (1) in a critical paradox, reasoning-specialized LRMs are consistently more susceptible to RTB than general-purpose LLMs, particularly in subjective tasks; (2) this creates a task-dependent trade-off, where LRMs show more robustness on factual tasks but less on subjective ones; and (3) we identify 'shallow reasoning'-plausible but flawed arguments-as the most potent form of RTB. To address this, we design and evaluate two prompting strategies: a targeted system prompt that improves accuracy by up to 12% on factual tasks but only 1-3% on subjective tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that shows similarly limited effectiveness in the more vulnerable subjective domains. Our work reveals that RTB is a deep-seated challenge for LRM-based evaluation and provides a systematic framework for developing more genuinely robust and trustworthy LRMs.

Related papers

• Is Long-to-Short a Free Lunch? Investigating Inconsistency and Reasoning Efficiency in LRMs [8.359909829007005]
  We investigate whether efficient reasoning strategies introduce behavioral inconsistencies in large reasoning models (LRMs)<n>$ICBENCH$ is a benchmark designed to measure inconsistency in LRMs across three dimensions.<n>We find that while larger models generally exhibit greater consistency than smaller ones, they all display widespread "scheming" behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T10:25:28Z)
• Don't Take the Premise for Granted: Evaluating the Premise Critique Ability of Large Language Models [11.379764847748378]
  Large language models (LLMs) often uncritically accept flawed or contradictory premises, leading to inefficient reasoning and unreliable outputs.<n>This emphasizes the significance of possessing the textbfPremise Critique Ability for LLMs, defined as the capacity to proactively identify and articulate errors in input premises.<n>We introduce the textbfPremise Critique Bench (PCBench), designed by incorporating four error types across three difficulty levels, paired with multi-faceted evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:49:44Z)
• Investigating the Vulnerability of LLM-as-a-Judge Architectures to Prompt-Injection Attacks [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge) for assessing the quality of machine-generated text.<n>This paper investigates the vulnerability of LLM-as-a-Judge architectures to prompt-injection attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T16:51:12Z)
• S1-Bench: A Simple Benchmark for Evaluating System 1 Thinking Capability of Large Reasoning Models [13.083179473480705]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved breakthroughs in complex reasoning tasks through explicit chains of thought.<n>Their heavy reliance on system 2 thinking may limit their system 1 thinking capabilities.<n>S1-Bench introduces a suite of simple, diverse, and natural questions to assess LRMs' performance on questions more suitable for system 1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T16:13:23Z)
• Assessing Judging Bias in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study [99.86300466350013]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities.<n>We present a benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T07:14:27Z)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step.<n>Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy.<n>We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM)<n>R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• 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.<n>We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs.<n>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)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• EQUATOR: A Deterministic Framework for Evaluating LLM Reasoning with Open-Ended Questions. # v1.0.0-beta [2.1249213103048414]
  We introduce the EQUATOR Evaluator, which combines deterministic scoring with a focus on factual accuracy and robust reasoning assessment.<n>Using a vector database, EQUATOR pairs open-ended questions with human-evaluated answers, enabling more precise and scalable evaluations.<n>Our results demonstrate that this framework significantly outperforms traditional multiple-choice evaluations while maintaining high accuracy standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T03:56:17Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)

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.