Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01867v1
• Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 21:02:18 GMT
• Title: Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks.<n>Recent work investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces.<n>We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.

Related papers

• Cognitive Profiling of LRMs' Reasoning Traces Using Bloom's Taxonomy [51.08110837378928]
  We introduce a framework for automatic annotation of reasoning steps through the lens of Bloom's taxonomy.<n>We perform a large-scale analysis across models and datasets, revealing both similarities and differences in thinking patterns across models and tasks.<n>Our findings establish a fine-grained framework for analyzing thinking patterns in LRMs and provide actionable insights for enhancing reasoning quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T12:55:51Z)
• To Think or Not To Think, That is The Question for Large Reasoning Models in Theory of Mind Tasks [56.11584171938381]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) assesses whether models can infer hidden mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.<n>Recent progress in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has boosted step-by-step inference in mathematics and coding.<n>We present a systematic study of nine advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) comparing reasoning models with non-reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:16:13Z)
• AI reasoning effort mirrors human decision time on content moderation tasks [0.5801621787540268]
  This study examines parallels between human decision times and model reasoning effort.<n>Both humans and models expended greater effort when important variables were held constant.<n>These findings show that AI reasoning effort mirrors human processing time in subjective judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T20:36:16Z)
• Don't Overthink It: A Survey of Efficient R1-style Large Reasoning Models [49.598776427454176]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have gradually become a research hotspot due to their outstanding performance in handling complex tasks.<n>However, with the widespread application of these models, the problem of overthinking has gradually emerged.<n>Various efficient reasoning methods have been proposed, aiming to reduce the length of reasoning paths without compromising model performance and reasoning capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T06:54:31Z)
• Can Reasoning Help Large Language Models Capture Human Annotator Disagreement? [84.32752330104775]
  Variation in human annotation (i.e., disagreements) is common in NLP.<n>We evaluate the influence of different reasoning settings on Large Language Model disagreement modeling.<n>Surprisingly, our results show that RLVR-style reasoning degrades performance in disagreement modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T09:49:26Z)
• Theory-Grounded Evaluation of Human-Like Fallacy Patterns in LLM Reasoning [0.0]
  We study logical reasoning in language models by asking whether their errors follow established human fallacy.<n>For each response, we judge logical reasoning and correctness when it matches an ETRpredicted fallacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T17:04:33Z)
• Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Abilities of Large Reasoning Models [15.009205651973666]
  We introduce LogiEval, a benchmark for evaluating logical reasoning in large reasoning models.<n>LogiEval spans diverse reasoning types (deductive, inductive, analogical, and abductive) and task formats (e.g., logical sequence, argument analysis)<n>Our experiments demonstrate that modern reasoning models excel at 4-choice argument analysis problems and analogical reasoning, surpassing human performance.<n>Our analysis reveals that human performance does not mirror model failure distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T05:36:14Z)
• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures.<n>Our experimental results reveal that (i) state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning LLMs perform on par or better than the human average but significantly worse than the human ceiling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans. Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z)
• 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)
• Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models [12.132449274592668]
  We show how LMs can be made to perform faithful multi-step reasoning via a process whose causal structure mirrors the underlying logical structure of the problem. Our approach works by chaining together reasoning steps, where each step results from calls to two fine-tuned LMs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our model on multi-step logical deduction and scientific question-answering, showing that it outperforms baselines on final answer accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T13:44:41Z)

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.