Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the controllability of reasoning patterns in LLMs by creating reasoning conflicts between mandated logical schemata and task-appropriate reasoning. The key finding is that LLMs generally prioritize sensibility (task-appropriate reasoning) over compliance (following instructions), even when it doesn't strictly improve accuracy, suggesting a reliance on internalized parametric memory. However, the authors also show that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable and that models can be steered towards compliance with mechanistic interventions, improving instruction following by up to 29%.
LLMs stubbornly stick to task-appropriate reasoning even when explicitly instructed to use conflicting logic, but targeted interventions can nudge them towards better instruction following.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) practices. 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, and for shedding light on reasoning 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. Notably, task accuracy is not strictly determined by sensibility, with models often maintaining high performance even when using conflicting patterns, suggesting a reliance on internalized parametric memory that increases with model size. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes. Probing experiments confirm that reasoning types are linearly encoded from middle-to-late layers, indicating the potential for activation-level controllability. 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.
