Semantic Deception: When Reasoning Models Can't Compute an Addition

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20812v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 22:22:18 GMT
• Title: Semantic Deception: When Reasoning Models Can't Compute an Addition
• Authors: Nathaniël de Leeuw, Marceau Nahon, Mathis Reymond, Raja Chatila, Mehdi Khamassi,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the so-called reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) over novel symbolic representations.<n>We introduce semantic deceptions: situations in which symbols carry misleading semantic associations due to their form.<n>We show that semantic cues can significantly deteriorate reasoning models' performance on very simple tasks.
• Score: 0.6361348748202731
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in situations where human values are at stake, such as decision-making tasks that involve reasoning when performed by humans. We investigate the so-called reasoning capabilities of LLMs over novel symbolic representations by introducing an experimental framework that tests their ability to process and manipulate unfamiliar symbols. We introduce semantic deceptions: situations in which symbols carry misleading semantic associations due to their form, such as being embedded in specific contexts, designed to probe whether LLMs can maintain symbolic abstraction or whether they default to exploiting learned semantic associations. We redefine standard digits and mathematical operators using novel symbols, and task LLMs with solving simple calculations expressed in this altered notation. The objective is: (1) to assess LLMs' capacity for abstraction and manipulation of arbitrary symbol systems; (2) to evaluate their ability to resist misleading semantic cues that conflict with the task's symbolic logic. Through experiments with four LLMs we show that semantic cues can significantly deteriorate reasoning models' performance on very simple tasks. They reveal limitations in current LLMs' ability for symbolic manipulations and highlight a tendency to over-rely on surface-level semantics, suggesting that chain-of-thoughts may amplify reliance on statistical correlations. Even in situations where LLMs seem to correctly follow instructions, semantic cues still impact basic capabilities. These limitations raise ethical and societal concerns, undermining the widespread and pernicious tendency to attribute reasoning abilities to LLMs and suggesting how LLMs might fail, in particular in decision-making contexts where robust symbolic reasoning is essential and should not be compromised by residual semantic associations inherited from the model's training.

Related papers

• Computational Thinking Reasoning in Large Language Models [69.28428524878885]
  Computational Thinking Model (CTM) is a novel framework that incorporates computational thinking paradigms into large language models (LLMs)<n>Live code execution is seamlessly integrated into the reasoning process, allowing CTM to think by computing.<n>CTM outperforms conventional reasoning models and tool-augmented baselines in terms of accuracy, interpretability, and generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:11:15Z)
• RULEBREAKERS: Challenging LLMs at the Crossroads between Formal Logic and Human-like Reasoning [3.0648414540406703]
  We create RULEBREAKERS, the first dataset for rigorously evaluating the ability of large language models to recognize and respond to rulebreakers in a human-like manner.<n>We find that most models, including GPT-4o, achieve mediocre accuracy on RULEBREAKERS and exhibit some tendency to over-rigidly apply logical rules unlike what is expected from typical human reasoners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:48:16Z)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• Stochastic LLMs do not Understand Language: Towards Symbolic, Explainable and Ontologically Based LLMs [0.0]
  We argue that the relative success of data-driven large language models (LLMs) is not a reflection on the symbolic vs. subsymbolic debate. We suggest in this paper applying the effective bottom-up strategy in a symbolic setting resulting in symbolic, explainable, and ontologically grounded language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T02:14:05Z)
• IERL: Interpretable Ensemble Representation Learning -- Combining CrowdSourced Knowledge and Distributed Semantic Representations [11.008412414253662]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) encode meanings of words in the form of distributed semantics. Recent studies have shown that LLMs tend to generate unintended, inconsistent, or wrong texts as outputs. We propose a novel ensemble learning method, Interpretable Ensemble Representation Learning (IERL), that systematically combines LLM and crowdsourced knowledge representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-24T05:02:34Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)

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.