Compliance vs. Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models

arXiv:2604.27251v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT). 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. 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. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores drop during conflicting episodes. Probing reveals instruction decodability even without compliance, while CKA identifies geometric differences across models and spans. 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.

Title:Compliance vs. Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models

Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT). 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. 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. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores drop during conflicting episodes. Probing reveals instruction decodability even without compliance, while CKA identifies geometric differences across models and spans. 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.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2604.27251 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2604.27251v3 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.27251 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

analiza aiqbench

Compliance vs. Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models

Subiecte conexe