The Reasoning Trap: An Information-Theoretic Bound on Closed-System Multi-Step LLM Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01704v2
• Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 16:21:16 GMT
• Title: The Reasoning Trap: An Information-Theoretic Bound on Closed-System Multi-Step LLM Reasoning
• Abstract summary: We name the multi-agent case the Debate Trap and the broader phenomenon the Reasoning Trap.<n>The framework has three parts: (i) SFS (Supported Faithfulness Score), a claim-level metric verifying atomic claims against provided evidence; (ii) EGSR (Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning), replacing adversarial argumentation with evidence-grounded inquiry.<n>We offer one falsifiable conjecture: any closed-system reasoning protocol preserving Theorem 1's Markov structure is, in expectation, subject to the same DPI bound.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: When copies of the same language model are prompted to debate, they produce diverse phrasings of one perspective rather than diverse perspectives. Multi-agent debate (MAD), and more broadly closed-system reasoning where agents iteratively transform each other's outputs, tends to preserve answer accuracy while degrading the reasoning behind those answers. We name the multi-agent case the Debate Trap and the broader phenomenon the Reasoning Trap, offering a programmatic theory of evidence-grounded reasoning failure.The framework has three parts: (i) SFS (Supported Faithfulness Score), a claim-level metric verifying decomposed atomic claims against provided evidence (decomposer-invariant rankings: Spearman rho=1.0); (ii) EGSR (Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning), replacing adversarial argumentation with evidence-grounded inquiry; (iii) Theorem 1 (DPI Bound): under standard MAD, the chain E -> O^0 -> O^1 -> ... is Markov, and the Data Processing Inequality implies E[I(E;O^{t+1})] <= E[I(E;O^t)]. Three companion results -- open-system recovery (Theorem 2), EGSR accumulation (Lemma 2), and vote-aggregation floor (Proposition 1) -- partition multi-step LLM reasoning by its information-theoretic relationship to E. Across 16 conditions on SciFact (300 claims) and FEVER (1,000 claims), DebateCV (C13) preserves 88% of baseline accuracy while SFS drops 43%; majority-vote MAD (C15) reduces SFS to 1.7% of baseline (p < 10^{-6}, d = -0.96); EGSR recovers 98%. An R6 cohort study (Korean n=10x30 FEVER; English n=3x200 SciFact) finds inter-rater Fleiss kappa <= +0.018 with 0.8-1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts across language and domain -- the human agreement that faithfulness metrics have been calibrated against is not itself stable. We offer one falsifiable conjecture: any closed-system reasoning protocol preserving Theorem 1's Markov structure is, in expectation, subject to the same DPI bound.

Related papers

• Deposon: An Auditable, Conservation-Guaranteed, Game-Theoretically Tested Scattering Layer over LLM Reasoning Paths [0.0]
  Multi-step LLM reasoning lacks a machine-recheckable ledger.<n>We propose the Deposon scattering layer, which binds each node of an LLM-generated concept-decomposition graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T16:40:31Z)
• Free Energy Heuristics: Fast-And-Frugal Cognition as Active Inference Under Uncertain Precision [0.0]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) improves large language models' performance in math and symbolic reasoning.<n>But on planning, contested ethics, and tasks where the model cannot check itself, more reasoning makes things worse.<n>We argue it is meta-uncertainty: how unsure the model is about the reliability of its own evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T16:04:09Z)
• Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate [5.650336594658653]
  We show that a conventional answer flip rate conflates three mechanisms: spontaneous instability, stance-induced conformity, and reasoning-induced persuasion.<n>Our three-source decomposition framework isolates each through controlled counterfactual conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T17:41:11Z)
• LiveMathematicianBench: A Live Benchmark for Mathematician-Level Reasoning with Proof Sketches [61.30693283718321]
  We present LiveMathematicianBench, a dynamic multiple-choice benchmark for research-level mathematical reasoning.<n>By grounding evaluation in newly published theorems, it provides a realistic testbed beyond memorized patterns.<n>It employs a proof-sketchguided distractor pipeline that uses high-level proof strategies to construct plausible but invalid answer choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T08:22:17Z)
• Umwelt Engineering: Designing the Cognitive Worlds of Linguistic Agents [0.0]
  I propose design of the linguistic cognitive environment as a third layer in stack stack engineering.<n>Two experiments test the thesis that altering medium of reasoning alters itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-29T10:49:50Z)
• Repetition Without Exclusivity: Scale Sensitivity of Referential Mechanisms in Child-Scale Language Models [0.0]
  We operationalise mutual exclusivity as referential suppression in language models trained on child-directed speech.<n>We find that distributional learning on child-directed speech produces repetition-based reference tracking rather than lexical exclusivity.<n>We argue that referential grounding may be a necessary ingredient for ME -- an empirical claim about required input structure, not a nativist one.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-14T01:59:50Z)
• Theoretical Foundations of Latent Posterior Factors: Formal Guarantees for Multi-Evidence Reasoning [0.0]
  Latent Posterior Factors (LPF) is a principled framework for aggregating multiple heterogeneous evidence items in probabilistic prediction tasks.<n> LPF encodes each evidence item into a Gaussian latent posterior via a variational autoencoder, converting posteriors to soft factors through Monte Carlo and aggregating factors via exact Sum-Product Network inference (LPF-PN)<n>All aggregators are empirically validated on datasets spanning up to 4,200 training examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T17:44:14Z)
• Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
  We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z)
• SIN-Bench: Tracing Native Evidence Chains in Long-Context Multimodal Scientific Interleaved Literature [92.88058660627678]
  "Fish-in-the-Ocean" (FITO) paradigm requires models to construct explicit cross-modal evidence chains within scientific documents.<n>We construct SIN-Bench with four progressive tasks covering evidence discovery (SIN-Find), hypothesis verification (SIN-Verify), grounded QA (SIN-QA) and evidence-anchored synthesis (SIN-Summary)<n>We introduce "No Evidence, No Score", scoring predictions when grounded to verifiable anchors and diagnosing evidence quality via matching, relevance, and logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T06:25:25Z)
• Milestones over Outcome: Unlocking Geometric Reasoning with Sub-Goal Verifiable Reward [67.00373428443879]
  We introduce a paradigm shift towards subgoal-level evaluation and learning.<n>We first construct GeoGoal, a benchmark synthesized via a rigorous formal verification data engine.<n>We propose the Sub-Goal Verifiable Reward (SGVR) framework, which replaces sparse signals with dense rewards based on the Skeleton Rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T16:17:56Z)
• From Facts to Conclusions : Integrating Deductive Reasoning in Retrieval-Augmented LLMs [5.838119242443381]
  We propose a reasoning-trace-augmented RAG framework that adds structured, interpretable reasoning across three stages.<n>A Conflict-Aware Trust-Score (CATS) pipeline is introduced which evaluates groundedness, factual correctness, refusal accuracy, and conflict-behavior alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-18T17:27:51Z)
• ARCHE: A Novel Task to Evaluate LLMs on Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction [70.53044880892196]
  We introduce a novel task named Latent Reasoning Chain Extraction (ARCHE), in which models must decompose complex reasoning arguments into combinations of standard reasoning paradigms in the form of a Reasoning Logic Tree (RLT)<n>To facilitate this task, we release ARCHE Bench, a new benchmark derived from 70 Nature Communications articles, including more than 1,900 references and 38,000 viewpoints.<n> Evaluations on 10 leading LLMs on ARCHE Bench reveal that models exhibit a trade-off between REA and EC, and none are yet able to extract a complete and standard reasoning chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T07:37:09Z)
• Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [51.21714389639417]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting boosts Language Models' (LM) performance on a gamut of reasoning tasks. We propose Faithful CoT, a reasoning framework involving two stages: Translation and Problem Solving. This guarantees that the reasoning chain provides a faithful explanation of the final answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T03:04:26Z)

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.