The Ends Justify the Thoughts: RL-Induced Motivated Reasoning in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17057v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 00:24:08 GMT
• Title: The Ends Justify the Thoughts: RL-Induced Motivated Reasoning in LLMs
• Authors: Nikolaus Howe, Micah Carroll,
• Abstract summary: We find that motivated reasoning can be detected by most frontier reasoning models.<n>We find that as models become more sophisticated, their motivated reasoning may become increasingly difficult for monitors to detect.
• Score: 2.583082967853897
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The use of reinforcement learning (RL) with chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has emerged as a promising approach for developing more capable language models. In turn, this has led to investigation of CoT monitoring as a compelling method for detecting harmful behaviors such as reward hacking, under the assumption that models' reasoning processes reflect their internal decision-making. In practice, LLM training often produces unintended behaviors due to imperfect reward signals, leading models to develop misaligned tendencies. A common corrective approach is to apply post-hoc instructions to avoid problematic behaviors like sycophancy, but what happens to the model's reasoning process when these instructions conflict with learned behaviors? We investigate this question in simple settings and find that models engage in systematic motivated reasoning -- generating plausible-sounding justifications for violating their instructions while downplaying potential harms. Beyond being an interesting property of training, we find that while motivated reasoning can be detected by most frontier reasoning models, smaller LLM judges can fail to identify a portion of it, and in rare cases can themselves be persuaded that the reasoning is correct, despite it contradicting clear instructions. This capability gap raises concerns that as models become more sophisticated, their motivated reasoning may become increasingly difficult for monitors to detect. Our results underscore the need to account for motivated reasoning when relying on chain-of-thought processes for model evaluation and oversight. All code for this paper will be made available. WARNING: some examples in this paper may be upsetting.

Related papers

• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• 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)
• Thought Crime: Backdoors and Emergent Misalignment in Reasoning Models [1.6639438555897186]
  We finetune reasoning models on malicious behaviors with Chain-of-Thought disabled, and then re-enable CoT at evaluation.<n>We find that reasoning models become broadly misaligned. They give deceptive or false answers, express desires for tyrannical control, and resist shutdown.<n>In summary, reasoning steps can both reveal and conceal misaligned intentions, and do not prevent misalignment behaviors in the models studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T08:10:04Z)
• Socratic-MCTS: Test-Time Visual Reasoning by Asking the Right Questions [100.41062461003389]
  We show that framing reasoning as a search process helps the model "connect the dots" between fragmented knowledge and produce extended reasoning traces in non-reasoning models.<n>We evaluate our method across three benchmarks and observe consistent improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T15:51:16Z)
• Overclocking LLM Reasoning: Monitoring and Controlling Thinking Path Lengths in LLMs [52.663816303997194]
  A key factor influencing answer quality is the length of the thinking stage.<n>This paper explores and exploits the mechanisms by which LLMs understand and regulate the length of their reasoning.<n>Our results demonstrate that this "overclocking" method mitigates overthinking, improves answer accuracy, and reduces inference latency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T17:54:33Z)
• Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision [5.173324198381261]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning provides insights into decision-making processes.<n>CoT monitoring can be used to reduce risks associated with deploying models.<n>We show that penalizing the use of specific strings within load-bearing reasoning traces causes models to substitute alternative strings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T17:45:15Z)
• Think or Not? Selective Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Language Models [67.87579664988199]
  TON is a two-stage training strategy for vision-language models (VLMs)<n>It introduces a think-or-not format that serves as a cold start for selective reasoning.<n>TON can reduce the completion length by up to 90% compared to vanilla GRPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T16:13:29Z)
• Scaling Reasoning, Losing Control: Evaluating Instruction Following in Large Reasoning Models [27.142703756752997]
  We introduce MathIF, a benchmark for evaluating instruction-following in mathematical reasoning tasks.<n>Our empirical analysis reveals a consistent tension between scaling up reasoning capacity and maintaining controllability.<n>We show that even simple interventions can partially recover obedience, though at the cost of reasoning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T18:18:01Z)
• GTR: Guided Thought Reinforcement Prevents Thought Collapse in RL-based VLM Agent Training [62.536191233049614]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable outcome rewards (RLVR) has effectively scaled up chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>This work investigates this problem through extensive experiments on complex card games, such as 24 points, and embodied tasks from ALFWorld.<n>We find that when rewards are based solely on action outcomes, RL fails to incentivize CoT reasoning in VLMs, instead leading to a phenomenon we termed thought collapse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T15:17:02Z)
• 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)

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.