Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Large Language and Reasoning Models are Shallow Disjunctive Reasoners

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.23487 v2 pith:2PMESKTO submitted 2025-03-30 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords reasoninglargelrmsmodelstasksbeendisjunctivegeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to struggle with systematic reasoning. Even on tasks where they appear to perform well, their performance often depends on shortcuts, rather than on genuine reasoning abilities, leading them to collapse on out-of-distribution (OOD) examples. Post-training strategies based on reinforcement learning and chain-of-thought prompting have recently been hailed as a step change. However, little is known about the potential of the resulting ``Large Reasoning Models'' (LRMs) beyond maths and programming-based problem solving, where genuine OOD problems can be sparse. In this paper, we focus on tasks that require systematic relational composition for qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning. The setting allows fine control over problem difficulty to precisely measure OOD generalization. We find that, zero-shot LRMs generally outperform their LLM counterparts in single-path reasoning tasks but struggle in the multi-path setting. Whilst showing comparatively better results, fine-tuned LLMs are also not capable of multi-path generalization. We also provide evidence for the behavioral interpretation for this, i.e., that LRMs are shallow disjunctive reasoners.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dissecting Clinical Reasoning in Language Models: A Comparative Study of Prompts and Model Adaptation Strategies

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    Prompt structure and LoRA adaptation both strongly affect F1 on NLI4CT clinical NLI, but the claimed consistent +8 to 12 point LoRA gains and over 97% validity are not supported by the reported per-configuration results.

Pith tools