Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper investigates the robustness of LLM reasoning by evaluating reasoning trace length across three contextual variations: irrelevant context, multi-turn conversations, and subtasks within complex tasks. They find that LLMs significantly shorten their reasoning traces (up to 50%) when problems are presented within these contexts compared to isolated presentation. This "reasoning shift" involves a reduction in self-verification and uncertainty management, potentially impacting performance on complex tasks.
LLMs slash their reasoning steps by up to 50% when faced with irrelevant context or multi-turn conversations, suggesting a surprising sensitivity to context that undermines robust reasoning.
Large language models (LLMs) exhibiting test-time scaling behavior, such as extended reasoning traces and self-verification, have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex, long-term reasoning tasks. However, the robustness of these reasoning behaviors remains underexplored. To investigate this, we conduct a systematic evaluation of multiple reasoning models across three scenarios: (1) problems augmented with lengthy, irrelevant context; (2) multi-turn conversational settings with independent tasks; and (3) problems presented as a subtask within a complex task. We observe an interesting phenomenon: reasoning models tend to produce much shorter reasoning traces (up to 50%) for the same problem under different context conditions compared to the traces produced when the problem is presented in isolation. A finer-grained analysis reveals that this compression is associated with a decrease in self-verification and uncertainty management behaviors, such as double-checking. While this behavioral shift does not compromise performance on straightforward problems, it might affect performance on more challenging tasks. We hope our findings draw additional attention to both the robustness of reasoning models and the problem of context management for LLMs and LLM-based agents.