Reasoning or Rationalization? The Role of Justifications in Masked Diffusion Models for Fact Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01190v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2026 17:18:05 GMT
• Title: Reasoning or Rationalization? The Role of Justifications in Masked Diffusion Models for Fact Verification
• Abstract summary: Masked Diffusion Language Models generate tokens sequentially and benefit from reasoning-before-answering strategies.<n>We show that MDLMs converge on a verdict early in the diffusion process, treating it as a global anchor that is resolved before the justification is complete.<n>Experiments reveal that the model rationalizes incorrect forced verdicts in 56% of cases, and that verdicts are strongly causally dependent on justification quality.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Unlike autoregressive models, which generate tokens sequentially and benefit from reasoning-before-answering strategies such as Chain-of-Thought, Masked Diffusion Language Models (MDLMs) refine all sequence positions simultaneously, raising questions about how these models handle tasks requiring justified verdicts. In this work, we investigate the dynamics of MDLM reasoning on fact verification, examining whether justifications serve as genuine reasoning or post-hoc rationalization. We observe that MDLMs typically converge on a verdict early in the diffusion process, treating it as a global anchor that is resolved before the justification is complete. Crucially, enforcing a reasoning-first constraint via delayed verdict unmasking actively degrades performance, dropping accuracy from 86.2% to 71.9% as accumulating justification tokens introduce inconsistencies that override initially correct predictions. Interventional experiments reveal that the model rationalizes incorrect forced verdicts in 56% of cases, and that verdicts are strongly causally dependent on justification quality (57.3% accuracy with corrupted justifications vs. 97.1% with ground-truth). This causal dependence explains the degradation under forced deliberation: as the model generates noisy justification tokens, it conditions on them, gradually overriding its initially correct assessment. Our findings suggest that for fact verification with MDLMs, extended deliberation can be counterproductive, risking the dilution of accurate early predictions with noise introduced during justification generation.

Related papers

• What LLM Forecasters Know but Don't Say: Probing Internal Representations for Calibration and Faithfulness [3.4789212936038116]
  We train representation-pooling probes on intermediate activations and find they achieve substantially better calibration.<n>We assess chain-of-thought faithfulness through evidence ablation and diversionary injection.<n>A single pre-reasoning pass recovers the committed answer and confidence, and routing questions by the spread of this pre-set answer distribution saves 30-47% of generated tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-09T01:52:09Z)
• Correct Answers from Sound Reasoning: Verifiable Process Supervision for Language Models [94.68358825189738]
  We propose a post-training framework for verifiable domains that jointly optimize prediction accuracy and reasoning quality.<n>We evaluate VPS on chess, a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals.<n>VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30% and restoring consistency to near saturation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T15:19:46Z)
• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Uncovering Hidden Correctness in LLM Causal Reasoning via Symbolic Verification [56.51953062869371]
  DoVerifier is a symbolic verifier that checks whether causal expressions are derivable from a given causal graph using rules from do-calculus and probability theory.<n>Our evaluations on synthetic data and causal QA benchmarks show that DoVerifier more accurately captures semantic correctness of causal reasoning traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T03:22:58Z)
• Distortion Instead of Hallucination: The Effect of Reasoning Under Strict Constraints [0.0]
  Reasoning capabilities have received attention as a self-verification process to improve output reliability.<n>We conduct experiments under strict constraints to examine the effect of reasoning across multiple models.<n>Our results reveal a problematic trade-off between constraint compliance and factual accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-04T11:35:39Z)
• MR-Align: Meta-Reasoning Informed Factuality Alignment for Large Reasoning Models [43.872922223495586]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong capabilities in complex reasoning, yet their marginal gains on evidence-dependent factual questions are limited.<n>We find this limitation is partially attributable to a reasoning-answer hit gap, where the model identifies the correct facts during reasoning but fails to incorporate them into the final response.<n>We propose MR-ALIGN, a framework that enhances factuality without relying on external verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:00:54Z)
• Stop Spinning Wheels: Mitigating LLM Overthinking via Mining Patterns for Early Reasoning Exit [114.83867400179354]
  Overthinking can degrade overall performance of large language models.<n>We categorize reasoning into three stages: insufficient exploration stage, compensatory reasoning stage, and reasoning convergence stage.<n>We develop a lightweight thresholding strategy based on rules to improve reasoning accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T03:17:17Z)
• Lost at the Beginning of Reasoning [85.17612793300238]
  We show that the first reasoning step exerts a disproportionately large influence on the final prediction.<n>We propose an efficient sampling strategy that leverages a reward model to identify and retain high-quality first reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:53:57Z)
• Chain-of-Code Collapse: Reasoning Failures in LLMs via Adversarial Prompting in Code Generation [0.3495246564946556]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in tasks requiring complex reasoning.<n>Do these models truly reason, or do they merely exploit shallow statistical patterns?<n>We introduce Chain-of-Code Collapse, where we investigate the robustness of reasoning LLMs by introducing a suite of semantically faithful yet adversarially structured prompt perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T02:43:46Z)
• FlashThink: An Early Exit Method For Efficient Reasoning [2.1448740411847593]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in reasoning tasks.<n>LLMs tend to generate excessively long reasoning content, leading to significant computational overhead.<n>We introduce a verification model that identifies the exact moment when the model can stop reasoning and still provide the correct answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T05:28:21Z)
• CRAVE: A Conflicting Reasoning Approach for Explainable Claim Verification Using LLMs [15.170312674645535]
  CRAVE is a Conflicting Reasoning Approach for explainable claim VErification.<n>It can verify complex claims based on the conflicting rationales reasoned by large language models.<n>CRAVE achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T07:20:31Z)
• Does Reasoning Introduce Bias? A Study of Social Bias Evaluation and Mitigation in LLM Reasoning [21.921684911834447]
  We present the first systematic evaluation of social bias within large language models (LLMs)<n>We analyze both prediction accuracy and reasoning bias across a broad spectrum of models, including instruction-tuned and CoT-augmented variants of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT.<n>We propose Answer Distribution as Bias Proxy (ADBP), a lightweight mitigation method that detects bias by tracking how model predictions change across incremental reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T10:16:07Z)
• 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)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)

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.