# Can Consumer Chatbots Reason? A Student-Led Field Experiment Embedded in an "AI-for-All" Undergraduate Course

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04225 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04225/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 4 of its 5 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Dec 2025.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06941/) (2025)
- [Do AI Models Perform Human-like Abstract Reasoning Across Modalities?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.02125/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [From Understanding to Creation: A Prerequisite-Free AI Literacy Course with Technical Depth Across Majors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.09634/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Claims about whether large language model (LLM) chatbots "reason" are typically debated using curated benchmarks and laboratory-style evaluation protocols. This paper offers a complementary perspective: a student-led field experiment embedded as a midterm project in UNIV 182 (AI4All) at George Mason University, a Mason Core course designed for undergraduates across disciplines with no expected prior STEM exposure. Student teams designed their own reasoning tasks, ran them on widely used consumer chatbots representative of current capabilities, and evaluated both (i) answer correctness and (ii) the validity of the chatbot's stated reasoning (for example, cases where an answer is correct but the explanation is not, or vice versa). Across eight teams that reported standardized scores, students contributed 80 original reasoning prompts spanning six categories: pattern completion, transformation rules, spatial/visual reasoning, quantitative reasoning, relational/logic reasoning, and analogical reasoning. These prompts yielded 320 model responses plus follow-up explanations. Aggregating team-level results, OpenAI GPT-5 and Claude 4.5 achieved the highest mean answer accuracy (86.2% and 83.8%), followed by Grok 4 (82.5%) and Perplexity (73.1%); explanation validity showed a similar ordering (81.2%, 80.0%, 77.5%, 66.2%). Qualitatively, teams converged on a consistent error signature: strong performance on short, structured math and pattern items but reduced reliability on spatial/visual reasoning and multi-step transformations, with frequent "sound right but reason wrong" explanations. The assignment's primary contribution is pedagogical: it operationalizes AI literacy as experimental practice (prompt design, measurement, rater disagreement, and interpretability/grounding) while producing a reusable, student-generated corpus of reasoning probes grounded in authentic end-user interaction.