PHANTOM RECALL: When Familiar Puzzles Fool Smart Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11812v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 18:09:50 GMT
• Title: PHANTOM RECALL: When Familiar Puzzles Fool Smart Models
• Authors: Souradeep Mukhopadhyay, Rishabh Baral, Nimeesh Mahajan, Samhitha Harish, Aswin RRV, Mihir Parmar, Mutsumi Nakamura, Chitta Baral,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT, Gemini, and Claude often appear adept at solving classic logic puzzles.<n>Recent evidence suggests that these models frequently rely on memorized templates rather than reasoning from first principles.<n>Despite near-perfect accuracy on puzzles, models significantly underperform humans on unmodified ones.
• Score: 29.172155264798466
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT, Gemini, and Claude often appear adept at solving classic logic puzzles--but how much genuine reasoning underlies their answers? Recent evidence suggests that these models frequently rely on memorized templates rather than reasoning from first principles. When puzzles are slightly modified, their performance collapses, revealing a striking fragility. In particular, we asked: Have LLMs addressed these issues? To what extent? How about perturbations to other puzzles? Is there a general way of reformulating the prompt so that the models do better? To examine these things systematically, we introduce PHANTOM RECALL, a benchmark comprising 25 well-known logic puzzles and 149 carefully designed perturbations that preserve reasoning structure but alter superficial details and solutions. We evaluate eleven leading LLMs and identify a recurring failure mode--phantom recall--where models confidently reproduce memorized solutions or spurious rationales that no longer fit the altered scenario. To probe and mitigate this issue, we contribute three tools: (i) an automated logical-equivalence judge to detect reasoning mismatches, (ii) a taxonomy of fine-grained reasoning error categories, and (iii) a prompting-based mitigation framework guided by these categories. Despite near-perfect accuracy on unmodified puzzles, models significantly underperform humans on perturbed ones, exhibiting both phantom recall and over-elaboration. Our findings reveal a crucial limitation: LLMs often fail to re-reason when contextual cues shift--highlighting the gap between linguistic fluency and logical understanding.

Related papers

• Think Smart, Not Hard: Difficulty Adaptive Reasoning for Large Audio Language Models [28.578488403845146]
  Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose a difficulty-adaptive reasoning method for LALMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T06:49:14Z)
• Frontier LLMs Still Struggle with Simple Reasoning Tasks [53.497499123166804]
  This work studies the performance of frontier language models on a broad set of "easy" reasoning problems.<n>We create a suite of procedurally generated simple reasoning tasks, including counting, first-order logic, proof trees, and travel planning.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art thinking models consistently fail on such problems and for similar reasons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T22:22:49Z)
• Reasoning Large Language Model Errors Arise from Hallucinating Critical Problem Features [1.0742675209112622]
  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 graph edges not specified in the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T21:55:12Z)
• FINEREASON: Evaluating and Improving LLMs' Deliberate Reasoning through Reflective Puzzle Solving [90.88021670297664]
  FINEREASON is a logic-puzzle benchmark for evaluation of large language models' reasoning capabilities.<n>We introduce two tasks: state checking, and state transition, for a comprehensive evaluation of how models assess the current situation and plan the next move.<n>We show that models trained on our state checking and transition data demonstrate gains in math reasoning by up to 5.1% on GSM8K.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T16:23:25Z)
• Unveiling the Magic of Code Reasoning through Hypothesis Decomposition and Amendment [54.62926010621013]
  We introduce a novel task, code reasoning, to provide a new perspective for the reasoning abilities of large language models.<n>We summarize three meta-benchmarks based on established forms of logical reasoning, and instantiate these into eight specific benchmark tasks.<n>We present a new pathway exploration pipeline inspired by human intricate problem-solving methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T10:39:58Z)
• On Memorization of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [70.94164038947078]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve good performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet could also make basic reasoning mistakes.<n>One hypothesis is that the increasingly high and nearly saturated performance could be due to the memorization of similar problems.<n>We show that fine-tuning leads to heavy memorization, but it also consistently improves generalization performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T15:31:54Z)
• Step-by-Step Reasoning to Solve Grid Puzzles: Where do LLMs Falter? [36.14795256060537]
  We develop GridPuzzle, an evaluation dataset comprising 274 grid-based puzzles with different complexities. Second, we propose a new error taxonomy derived from manual analysis of reasoning chains from LLMs including GPT-4, Claude-3, Gemini, Mistral, and Llama-2. Third, we develop an LLM-based framework for large-scale subjective evaluation (i.e., identifying errors) and an objective metric, PuzzleEval, to evaluate the correctness of reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T07:43:07Z)
• Deceptive Semantic Shortcuts on Reasoning Chains: How Far Can Models Go without Hallucination? [73.454943870226]
  This work studies a specific type of hallucination induced by semantic associations. To quantify this phenomenon, we propose a novel probing method and benchmark called EureQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:27:36Z)
• 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)

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.