A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners
Bowen Jiang, Yangxinyu Xie, Zhuoqun Hao, Xiaomeng Wang, Tanwi Mallick, Weijie Su, Camillo J. Taylor, Dan Roth
Abstract
This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities or primarily depend on token bias. We go beyond evaluating LLMs on accuracy; rather, we aim to investigate their token bias in solving logical reasoning tasks. Specifically, we develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems. Our framework outlines a list of hypotheses where token biases are readily identifiable, with all null hypotheses assuming genuine reasoning capabilities of LLMs. The findings in this study suggest, with statistical guarantee, that most LLMs still struggle with logical reasoning. While they may perform well on classic problems, their success largely depends on recognizing superficial patterns with strong token bias, thereby raising concerns about their actual reasoning and generalization abilities. Codes and data are open-sourced at https://github.com/bowenupenn/llm_token_bias .
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 75b4c66d-1dc8-41e4-9cde-4798e642af0bCited by top-tier papers19
- Teaching Language Models to Evolve with Users: Dynamic Profile Modeling for Personalized AlignmentWeixiang Zhao, Xingyu Sui, Yulin Hu, Jiahe Guo et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 34 citations
- ASyMOB: Algebraic Symbolic Mathematical Operations BenchmarkMichael Shalyt, Rotem Elimelech, Ido KaminerICML 2026 · 7 citations
- Quadratic Coreset Selection: Certifying and Reconciling Sequence and Token Mining for Efficient Instruction TuningZiliang Chen, Yongsen Zheng, Zhao-Rong Lai, Zhanfu Yang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 4 citations
- LINGOLY-TOO: Disentangling Reasoning from Knowledge with Templatised Orthographic ObfuscationJude Khouja, Lingyi Yang, Karolina Korgul, Simeon Hellsten et al.ICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- TRIM: Token-wise Attention-Derived Saliency for Data-Efficient Instruction TuningManish Nagaraj, Sakshi Choudhary, Utkarsh Saxena, Deepak Ravikumar et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
Builds on12
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language ModelsShunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,068 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
- Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language ModelsMaciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger et al.AAAI 2024 · 1,292 citations
- Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning YetJie Huang, Xinyun Chen, Swaroop Mishra, Huaixiu Steven Zheng et al.ICLR 2024 · 858 citations
Related papers
- Logical forms complement probability in understanding language model (and human) performanceYixuan Wang, Freda ShiACL 2025 · 2 citations
- Test of Time: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Temporal ReasoningBahare Fatemi, Mehran Kazemi, Anton Tsitsulin, Karishma Malkan et al.ICLR 2025 · 2 citations
- Conditional and Modal Reasoning in Large Language ModelsWesley H. Holliday, Matthew Mandelkern, Cedegao ZhangEMNLP 2024 · 5 citations
- SATBench: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Reasoning via Automated Puzzle Generation from SAT FormulasAnjiang Wei, Yuheng Wu, Yingjia Wan, Tarun Suresh et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language ModelsMihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura et al.ACL 2024
