AI reasoning effort mirrors human decision time on content moderation tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.20262v1
• Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 20:36:16 GMT
• Title: AI reasoning effort mirrors human decision time on content moderation tasks
• Abstract summary: This study examines parallels between human decision times and model reasoning effort.<n>Both humans and models expended greater effort when important variables were held constant.<n>These findings show that AI reasoning effort mirrors human processing time in subjective judgments.
• Score: 0.5801621787540268
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models can now generate intermediate reasoning steps before producing answers, improving performance on difficult problems. This study uses a paired conjoint experiment on a content moderation task to examine parallels between human decision times and model reasoning effort. Across three frontier models, reasoning effort consistently predicts human decision time. Both humans and models expended greater effort when important variables were held constant, suggesting similar sensitivity to task difficulty and patterns consistent with dual-process theories of cognition. These findings show that AI reasoning effort mirrors human processing time in subjective judgments and underscores the potential of reasoning traces for interpretability and decision-making.

Related papers

• Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning [0.0]
  Large language models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks.<n>Recent work investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces.<n>We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T21:02:18Z)
• Reasoning Shift: How Context Silently Shortens LLM Reasoning [2.143376938174599]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibiting test-time scaling behavior, such as extended reasoning traces and self-verification, have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex, long-term reasoning tasks.<n>We investigate this robustness of reasoning models across three scenarios: problems augmented with lengthy, irrelevant context; multi-turn conversational settings with independent tasks; and problems presented as a subtask within a complex task.<n>We observe that reasoning models tend to produce much shorter reasoning traces (up to 50%) for the same problem under different context conditions compared to the traces produced when the problem is presented in isolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T17:14:18Z)
• To Think or Not To Think, That is The Question for Large Reasoning Models in Theory of Mind Tasks [56.11584171938381]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) assesses whether models can infer hidden mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.<n>Recent progress in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has boosted step-by-step inference in mathematics and coding.<n>We present a systematic study of nine advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) comparing reasoning models with non-reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:16:13Z)
• Cognitive Decision Routing in Large Language Models: When to Think Fast, When to Think Slow [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) face a fundamental challenge in deciding when to rely on rapid, intuitive responses versus engaging in slower, more deliberate reasoning.<n>Inspired by Daniel Kahneman's dual-process theory and his insights on human cognitive biases, we propose a novel Cognitive Decision Routing framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T01:07:58Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Do Language Models Understand the Cognitive Tasks Given to Them? Investigations with the N-Back Paradigm [9.577716124021029]
  We show that GPT 3.5's declining performance on 2-back and 3-back tasks reflects a working memory capacity limit similar to humans.<n>By analyzing a range of open-source language models of varying performance levels on these tasks, we show that the poor performance is due at least in part to a limitation in task comprehension and task set maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T03:06:52Z)
• Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions: Insights from Large Language Models and Cognitive Instance-Based Learning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their capabilities across various tasks. This paper exploits the reasoning and generative capabilities of the LLMs to predict human behavior in two sequential decision-making tasks. We compare the performance of LLMs with a cognitive instance-based learning model, which imitates human experiential decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T14:13:06Z)
• UNcommonsense Reasoning: Abductive Reasoning about Uncommon Situations [62.71847873326847]
  We investigate the ability to model unusual, unexpected, and unlikely situations. Given a piece of context with an unexpected outcome, this task requires reasoning abductively to generate an explanation. We release a new English language corpus called UNcommonsense.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:00:55Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• 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)
• Designing Closed-Loop Models for Task Allocation [36.04165658325371]
  We exploit weak prior information on human-task similarity to bootstrap model training. We show that the use of such a weak prior can improve task allocation accuracy, even when human decision-makers are fallible and biased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T13:57:56Z)

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.