# Evaluation of Deontic Conditional Reasoning in Large Language Models: The Case of Wason's Selection Task

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06416 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06416/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [2 OLMo 2 Furious](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00656/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models (LLMs) advance in linguistic competence, their reasoning abilities are gaining increasing attention. In humans, reasoning often performs well in domain specific settings, particularly in normative rather than purely formal contexts. Although prior studies have compared LLM and human reasoning, the domain specificity of LLM reasoning remains underexplored. In this study, we introduce a new Wason Selection Task dataset that explicitly encodes deontic modality to systematically distinguish deontic from descriptive conditionals, and use it to examine LLMs' conditional reasoning under deontic rules. We further analyze whether observed error patterns are better explained by confirmation bias (a tendency to seek rule-supporting evidence) or by matching bias (a tendency to ignore negation and select items that lexically match elements of the rule). Results show that, like humans, LLMs reason better with deontic rules and display matching-bias-like errors. Together, these findings suggest that the performance of LLMs varies systematically across rule types and that their error patterns can parallel well-known human biases in this paradigm.