# Test-Time Reasoners Are Strategic Multiple-Choice Test-Takers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07761 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07761/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 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 64 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 26 of 26)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01042/) (2018)
- [Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09686/) (2025)
- [Spurious Rewards: Rethinking Training Signals in RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10947/) (2025)
- [On Second Thought, Let's Not Think Step by Step! Bias and Toxicity in Zero-Shot Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08061/) (2022)
- [Reasoning Models Can Be Effective Without Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09858/) (2025)
- [AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07358/) (2024)
- [The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06608/) (2024)
- [Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04614/) (2024)
- [Don't Overthink it. Preferring Shorter Thinking Chains for Improved LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17813/) (2025)
- [SuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation across 285 Graduate Disciplines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14739/) (2025)
- [Answer Matching Outperforms Multiple Choice for Language Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02856/) (2025)
- [Does Reasoning Introduce Bias? A Study of Social Bias Evaluation and Mitigation in LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15361/) (2025)
- [Multiple Choice Questions: Reasoning Makes Large Language Models (LLMs) More Self-Confident, Especially When They are Wrong](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09775/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models are Test Exploiters: Rethinking Multiple-Choice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.15337/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06221/) (2026)
- [Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29887/) (2026)
- [VibeJam: A User Study Platform for Web Development with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29889/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) now give reasoning before answering, excelling in tasks like multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). Yet, a concern is that LLMs do not solve MCQs as intended, as work finds LLMs sans reasoning succeed in MCQA without using the question, i.e., choices-only. Such partial-input success is often linked to trivial shortcuts, but reasoning traces could reveal if choices-only strategies are truly shallow. To examine these strategies, we have reasoning LLMs solve MCQs in full and choices-only inputs; test-time reasoning often boosts accuracy in full and in choices-only, half the time. While possibly due to shallow shortcuts, choices-only success is barely affected by the length of reasoning traces, and after finding traces pass faithfulness tests, we show they use less problematic strategies like inferring missing questions. In all, we challenge claims that partial-input success is always a flaw, so we propose how reasoning traces could separate problematic data from less problematic reasoning.