Beware of Reasoning Overconfidence: Pitfalls in the Reasoning Process for Multi-solution Tasks
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01725v1
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:35:06 GMT
- Title: Beware of Reasoning Overconfidence: Pitfalls in the Reasoning Process for Multi-solution Tasks
- Authors: Jiannan Guan, Qiguang Chen, Libo Qin, Dengyun Peng, Jinhao Liu, Liangyu Huo, Jian Xie, Wanxiang Che,
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in reasoning tasks requiring a single correct answer, but they perform poorly in multi-solution tasks.<n>We attribute this limitation to textbfreasoning overconfidence: a tendency to express undue certainty in an incomplete solution set.<n>We propose the textbfcognitive-rigidity hypothesis, which posits that overconfidence arises when the reasoning process prematurely converges on a narrow set of thought paths.
- Score: 54.31998314008198
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in reasoning tasks requiring a single correct answer, but they perform poorly in multi-solution tasks that require generating comprehensive and diverse answers. We attribute this limitation to \textbf{reasoning overconfidence}: a tendency to express undue certainty in an incomplete solution set. To examine the effect, we introduce \textit{MuSoBench}, a benchmark of multi-solution problems. Experiments show that the conventional short chain-of-thought (Short-CoT) prompting paradigm exhibits pronounced overconfidence, whereas the emerging long chain-of-thought (Long-CoT) approach mitigates it through iterative exploration and self-reflection. We further characterise observable behaviours and influential factors. To probe the underlying cause, we propose the \textbf{cognitive-rigidity hypothesis}, which posits that overconfidence arises when the reasoning process prematurely converges on a narrow set of thought paths. An attention-entropy analysis offers preliminary support for this view. These findings provide tools for assessing the completeness of LLM reasoning and highlight the need to move evaluation beyond single-answer accuracy toward comprehensive exploration.
Related papers
- When Is Enough Not Enough? Illusory Completion in Search Agents [56.98225130959051]
We study whether search agents reliably reason across all requirements by tracking, verifying, and maintaining multiple conditions.<n>We find that illusory completion frequently occurs, wherein agents believe tasks are complete despite unresolved or violated constraints, leading to underverified answers.<n>We examine whether explicit constraint-state tracking during execution mitigates these failures via LiveLedger, an inference-time tracker.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-07T13:50:38Z) - FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z) - PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z) - Revisiting Overthinking in Long Chain-of-Thought from the Perspective of Self-Doubt [74.35891434097053]
Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks.<n>They often exhibit overthinking -- performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after arriving at the correct answer.<n>We present a quantitative analysis of overthinking from the perspective of self-doubt.<n>We introduce a simple and effective prompting method to reduce the model's over-reliance on input questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-29T14:30:02Z) - Read Your Own Mind: Reasoning Helps Surface Self-Confidence Signals in LLMs [2.4892313127400962]
We study the source of uncertainty in DeepSeek R1-32B by analyzing its self-reported verbal confidence on question answering (QA) tasks.<n>We show that granting DeepSeek the budget to explore its distribution by forcing a long chain-of-thought before the final answer greatly improves its verbal score effectiveness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-28T17:01:30Z) - Preemptive Answer "Attacks" on Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [7.233752893356647]
Large language models (LLMs) showcase impressive reasoning capabilities when coupled with Chain-of-Thought prompting.
In this paper, we introduce a novel scenario termed preemptive answers, where the LLM obtains an answer before engaging in reasoning.
Experiments reveal that preemptive answers significantly impair the model's reasoning capability across various CoT methods and a broad spectrum of datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-31T15:15:04Z) - Boosting of Thoughts: Trial-and-Error Problem Solving with Large Language Models [43.09706839884221]
Boosting of Thoughts (BoT) is an automated prompting framework for problem solving with Large Language Models.<n>We show that BoT consistently achieves higher or comparable problem-solving rates than other advanced prompting approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-17T00:13:36Z) - 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.