Thinking in a Crowd: How Auxiliary Information Shapes LLM Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
The capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason is fundamental to their application in complex, knowledge-intensive domains. In real-world scenarios, LLMs are often augmented with external information that can be helpful, irrelevant, or even misleading. This paper investigates the causal impact of such auxiliary information on the reasoning process of LLMs with explicit step-by-step thinking capabilities. We introduce SciAux, a new dataset derived from ScienceQA, to systematically test the robustness of the model against these types of information. Our findings reveal a critical vulnerability: the model's deliberative "thinking mode" is a double-edged sword. While helpful context improves accuracy, misleading information causes a catastrophic drop in performance, which is amplified by the thinking process. Instead of conferring robustness, thinking reinforces the degree of error when provided with misinformation. This highlights that the challenge is not merely to make models "think", but to endow them with the critical faculty to evaluate the information upon which their reasoning is based. The SciAux dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/billhdzhao/SciAux.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 26 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2025.
Builds on
26 of 32 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Report14 May
- 2025Evaluating Step-by-step Reasoning Traces: A Survey17 Feb
- 2021Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Models30 Nov
Other references · 23
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,212
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
- 2022Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answeringcited by 1,919
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2023Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflectioncited by 1,839
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2020ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERTcited by 1,178
11 more
- 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2023Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Contextcited by 841
- 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 722
- 2025The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexitycited by 302
- 2024Flooding Spread of Manipulated Knowledge in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Communitiescited by 86
- 2024How Easily do Irrelevant Inputs Skew the Responses of Large Language Models?cited by 44
- 2025How Is LLM Reasoning Distracted by Irrelevant Context? An Analysis Using a Controlled Benchmarkcited by 28
- 2025Dancing with Critiques: Enhancing LLM Reasoning with Stepwise Natural Language Self-Critiquecited by 13
- 2024DisGeM: Distractor Generation for Multiple Choice Questions with Span Maskingcited by 5
- 2025When Disagreements Elicit Robustness: Investigating Self-Repair Capabilities under LLM Multi-Agent Disagreementscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2026Multimodal Multi-Agent Empowered Legal Judgment Predictioncited by 14
- 2025Judge Before Answer: Can MLLM Discern the False Premise in Question?cited by 2
- 2025Semantic Deception: When Reasoning Models Can't Compute an Additioncited by 1
- 2026Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMscited by 1
- 2026Recognizing Is Not Reversing: A Controlled Inversion Test of Fact-Preserving News Framingcited by 0
- 2026Recognizing Is Not Reversing: A Controlled Inversion Test of Fact-Preserving News Framing10 Sep 2026
- 2026Label Over Logic? How Source Cues Bias Human Fallacy Judgments More Than LLMs28 May 2026
- 2026Multimodal Multi-Agent Empowered Legal Judgment Prediction19 Jan 2026
- 2025Semantic Deception: When Reasoning Models Can't Compute an Addition23 Dec 2025
- 2025Judge Before Answer: Can MLLM Discern the False Premise in Question?13 Oct 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Fast, Slow, and Tool-augmented Thinking for LLMs: A Review
- 2025THiNK: Can Large Language Models Think-aloud?
- 2024Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey
- 2025Reasoning Capabilities and Invariability of Large Language Models
- 2023Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2022Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey
- 2025Cognitive Foundations for Reasoning and Their Manifestation in LLMs
- 2025Position: On the Methodological Pitfalls of Evaluating Base LLMs for Reasoning