An Enigma of Artificial Reason: Investigating the Production-Evaluation Gap in Large Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.01462v1
• Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 21:46:52 GMT
• Title: An Enigma of Artificial Reason: Investigating the Production-Evaluation Gap in Large Reasoning Models
• Abstract summary: We show that large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems.<n>We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers.<n>Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs.
• Score: 9.017619024241913
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Studies of human reasoning have shown that people are typically stronger at evaluating reasoning than producing it from scratch. In contrast, large reasoning models (LRMs) are trained to excel at producing long chains of reasoning to solve complex problems. How then do LRMs perform at evaluating reasons? We investigate this with the Valid-Answer-Invalid-Reasoning (VAIR) dataset: math problems and solutions with trivial reasoning flaws but valid answers, designed to isolate reasoning evaluation from the confound of reasoning production. Unlike humans, who we find are only 6% worse at grading than solving such problems, we find a substantial production-evaluation gap in LRMs: frontier models score as low as 48% when evaluating VAIR solutions, despite near-perfect solution production. Why this enigma? Through chain-of-thought (CoT) analysis, we find evidence of an answer confirmation bias: LRMs often produce then check for the correct answer instead of carefully verifying each step, fabricating rationalizations even when noticing anomalous reasoning. Linear probes corroborate this, showing that while LRM activations encode some representation of valid reasoning, they fail to robustly represent VAIR solutions as invalid. Causal patching of the final answer's representations causes LRM verdicts and activations to flip, demonstrating that answer validity is responsible for models' confirmation biases. These findings indicate an outstanding limitation in dominant approaches to reasoning training, which incentivize LRMs to produce and confirm reasoning towards correct answers, but not to robustly evaluate the underlying reasons.

Related papers

• When Is Thinking Enough? Early Exit via Sufficiency Assessment for Efficient Reasoning [52.21239821135325]
  We introduce Dynamic Thought Sufficiency in Reasoning (DTSR), a novel framework for efficient reasoning.<n>Inspired by human metacognition, DTSR operates in two stages: Reflection Signal Monitoring, and Thought Sufficiency Check.<n>DTSR reduces reasoning length by 28.9%-34.9% with minimal performance loss, effectively mitigating overthinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-08T07:56:28Z)
• Are Latent Reasoning Models Easily Interpretable? [8.215015010040917]
  Latent reasoning models (LRMs) have attracted significant research interest due to their low inference cost.<n>LRMs are difficult to monitor because they do not reason in natural language.<n>This paper presents an investigation into LRM interpretability by examining two state-of-the-art LRMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T17:50:06Z)
• Finding RELIEF: Shaping Reasoning Behavior without Reasoning Supervision via Belief Engineering [25.183793455770978]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success in complex problem-solving, yet they often suffer from computational redundancy or reasoning unfaithfulness.<n>We propose Reasoning Belief Engineering (RELIEF), a framework that shapes LRM behavior by aligning the model's self-concept with a target belief blueprint.<n>RELIEF internalizes desired traits by fine-tuning on synthesized, self-reflective question-answering pairs that affirm the target belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:07:01Z)
• 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)
• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• On the Self-awareness of Large Reasoning Models' Capability Boundaries [46.74014595035246]
  We investigate whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) possess self-awareness of capability boundaries.<n>For black-box models, reasoning expressions reveal boundary signals, with accelerated growing confidence trajectory for solvable problems but convergent uncertainty trajectory for unsolvable ones.<n>For white-box models, we show that hidden states of the last input token encode boundary information, with solvable and unsolvable problems linearly separable even before reasoning begins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:40:47Z)
• Reasoning or Retrieval? A Study of Answer Attribution on Large Reasoning Models [15.797612515648412]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit unprecedented capabilities in solving complex problems through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Recent studies reveal that their final answers often contradict their own reasoning traces.<n>We hypothesize that this inconsistency stems from two competing mechanisms for generating answers: CoT reasoning and memory retrieval.<n>We introduce FARL, a novel fine-tuning framework that integrates memory unlearning with reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T01:13:33Z)
• On Reasoning Strength Planning in Large Reasoning Models [50.61816666920207]
  We find evidence that LRMs pre-plan the reasoning strengths in their activations even before generation.<n>We then uncover that LRMs encode this reasoning strength through a pre-allocated directional vector embedded in the activations of the model.<n>Our work provides new insights into the internal mechanisms of reasoning in LRMs and offers practical tools for controlling their reasoning behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T02:55:13Z)
• Are Reasoning Models More Prone to Hallucination? [70.04436965009072]
  Recently evolved large reasoning models (LRMs) show powerful performance in solving complex tasks with long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capability.<n>Are reasoning models more prone to hallucination?<n>This paper addresses the question from three perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:53:41Z)
• Socratic-PRMBench: Benchmarking Process Reward Models with Systematic Reasoning Patterns [79.42805969325036]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) are crucial in complex reasoning and problem-solving tasks.<n>PRMs are required to identify errors under various reasoning patterns during the reasoning process.<n>Existing benchmarks mainly focus on evaluating PRMs with stepwise correctness.<n>We introduce Socratic-PRMBench, a new benchmark to evaluate PRMs systematically under six reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T14:26:53Z)
• BARREL: Boundary-Aware Reasoning for Factual and Reliable LRMs [87.24843751412783]
  We propose BARREL, a framework that promotes concise and boundary-aware factual reasoning.<n>Our experiments show that BARREL-training increases the reliability of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B from 39.33% to 61.48%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T07:27:34Z)

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.