Yuehao Tang

Zipeng Ling, Shuliang Liu, Shenghong Fu et al.

LLM reasoning traces suffer from complex flaws -- *Step Internal Flaws* (logical errors, hallucinations, etc.) and *Step-wise Flaws* (overthinking, underthinking), which vary by sample. A natural approach would be to provide ground-truth labels to guide LLMs' reasoning. Contrary to intuition, we show that this yields no improvement in reasoning ability. We then propose CRAFT, a unified framework that mitigates both types of Step flaws, which builds a Reasoning Knowledge Graph (RKG) based on the consensus parts of multiple candidate traces, and synthesizes a high-quality trace through topological generation. Our approach improves label-prediction accuracy by 10+% on average, and consistently outperforms all baselines across both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks. Further, detailed benchmark evaluation proves that our method also improves the quality of LLMs' reasoning traces in multiple dimensions.

Zipeng Ling, Yuehao Tang, Shuliang Liu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently output the label Unknown in reasoning tasks, where two scenarios may appear: (i) an input sample is genuinely unverifiable, but the model cannot understand why; and (ii) a verifiable problem that the model fails to solve, thus outputs Unknown. We refer to these cases collectively as the Vague Perception phenomenon. Current evaluations focus on whether such answers are honest, rather than analyzing the limits of LLM reasoning. To address this, we introduce WakenLLM, a framework that quantifies the portion of Unknown output attributable to model incapacity and evaluates whether stimulation can convert them into either correct answers (verifiable) or justified (unverifiable) responses with valid reasoning. Our method offers a clearer picture of the limits of LLM reasoning and the potential for corrections across various datasets. Comprehensive experiments on six LLMs suggest that, without any training or parameter revision, LLMs can achieve up to a 68.53% accuracy improvement on Vague Perception samples through guided understanding. Our work reveals that current baseline methods only activate a small portion of LLMs' reasoning potential, indicating considerable unexplored capacity. This extends the theoretical upper bounds of reasoning accuracy in LLMs. Consequently, this study deepens our understanding of the latent reasoning capacity of LLMs and offers a new perspective on addressing the Vague Perception phenomenon.

Zipeng Ling, Yuehao Tang, Chen Huang et al.

Nowadays, automatically generated datasets are increasingly used in LLM reasoning tasks; however, large-scale corpora often contain inherent flaws. For example, a single-choice question may include none or multiple correct options, while true-or-false questions may involve vague or unverifiable statements. We refer to these exceptional answer forms as sparse labels. To compare LLMs' ability to recognize various question forms and produce correct answers, we investigate how different instruction formats can either facilitate or mislead LLM reasoning ability. We introduce the concept of Instruction Boundary, which systematically analyzes how different levels of prompt coverage -- sufficient, redundant, or insufficient -- can lead to reasoning biases and performance changes in LLMs. To examine this phenomenon, we design eight experimental settings across five dataset forms. We further propose BiasDetector, a unified framework that quantifies LLMs' ability to identify sparse labels under different kinds of Instruction Boundary conditions. Evaluations on five mainstream LLMs show that, despite their seemingly high accuracy, substantial reasoning biases persist in many downstream tasks as a direct consequence of prompt coverage. We analyze the impact of these biases and outline possible mitigation strategies. Our findings highlight not only the importance of addressing sparse labels, but also the need for developers to recognize and mitigate the risks introduced by Instruction Boundary.