Compliance versus Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27251v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:55:40 GMT
• Title: Compliance versus Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data.<n>We show that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes.<n>Our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data.
• Score: 46.26628756478016
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) practices. However, whether fundamental reasoning patterns, such as induction, deduction, and abduction, can be decoupled from specific problem instances remains a critical challenge for model controllability, and for shedding light on reasoning controllability. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of this problem through the lens of reasoning conflicts: an explicit tension between parametric and contextual information induced by mandating logical schemata that deviate from those expected for a target task. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs consistently prioritize sensibility over compliance, favoring task-appropriate reasoning patterns despite conflicting instructions. Notably, task accuracy is not strictly determined by sensibility, with models often maintaining high performance even when using conflicting patterns, suggesting a reliance on internalized parametric memory that increases with model size. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes. Probing experiments confirm that reasoning types are linearly encoded from middle-to-late layers, indicating the potential for activation-level controllability. Leveraging these insights, we steer models towards compliance, increasing instruction following by up to 29%. Overall, our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data, offering a path toward improved controllability, faithfulness, and generalizability.

Related papers

• Learning Structured Reasoning via Tractable Trajectory Control [99.75278337895024]
  Ctrl-R is a framework for learning structured reasoning via tractable trajectory control.<n>We show that Ctrl-R enables effective exploration and internalization of previously unattainable reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T09:18:19Z)
• 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)
• CoG: Controllable Graph Reasoning via Relational Blueprints and Failure-Aware Refinement over Knowledge Graphs [53.199517625701475]
  CoG is a training-free framework inspired by Dual-Process Theory that mimics the interplay between intuition and deliberation.<n>CoG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both accuracy and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T07:27:40Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models [10.511177985572333]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers.<n>These detailed reasoning traces also create a new opportunity for AI safety, CoT Monitorability.<n>However, two key fundamental challenges arise when attempting to build more effective monitors through CoT analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T18:06:34Z)
• From "Aha Moments" to Controllable Thinking: Toward Meta-Cognitive Reasoning in Large Reasoning Models via Decoupled Reasoning and Control [11.321315058502215]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated a latent capacity for complex reasoning by spontaneously exhibiting cognitive behaviors such as step-by-step reasoning, reflection, and backtracking, commonly referred to as "Aha Moments"<n>However, such emergent behaviors remain unregulated and uncontrolled, often resulting in overthinking, where the model continues generating redundant reasoning content even after reaching reliable conclusions.<n>Current models are unable to monitor and adaptively manage their reasoning process to determine when to continue, backtrack, or terminate.<n>We propose the Meta-cognitive Reasoning Framework (MERA), which explicitly decouples the thinking process into distinct
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T13:59:17Z)
• Deep Hidden Cognition Facilitates Reliable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [33.30315111732609]
  Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning has demonstrated remarkable deep reasoning capabilities.<n>However, its reliability is often undermined by the accumulation of errors in intermediate steps.<n>This paper introduces an approach to calibrate the CoT reasoning accuracy by leveraging the model's intrinsic veracity encoding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T07:41:35Z)
• CTRLS: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Latent State-Transition [57.51370433303236]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enables large language models to break down complex problems into interpretable intermediate steps.<n>We introduce groundingS, a framework that formulates CoT reasoning as a Markov decision process (MDP) with latent state transitions.<n>We show improvements in reasoning accuracy, diversity, and exploration efficiency across benchmark reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T21:32:18Z)
• Mitigating Content Effects on Reasoning in Language Models through Fine-Grained Activation Steering [14.298418197820912]
  Large language models (LLMs) frequently demonstrate reasoning limitations, often conflating content plausibility with logical validity.<n>This can result in biased inferences, where plausible arguments are incorrectly deemed logically valid or vice versa.<n>This paper investigates the problem of mitigating content biases on formal reasoning through activation steering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T01:34:34Z)
• Exploring LLM Reasoning Through Controlled Prompt Variations [0.9217021281095907]
  We evaluate how well state-of-the-art models maintain logical consistency and correctness when confronted with four categories of prompt perturbations.<n>Our experiments, conducted on thirteen open-source and closed-source LLMs, reveal that introducing irrelevant context within the model's context window significantly degrades performance.<n>Certain perturbations inadvertently trigger chain-of-thought-like reasoning behaviors, even without explicit prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T20:18:50Z)

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.