# Bridging the Know-Act Gap via Task-Level Autoregressive Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22619 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22619/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Mar 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)
- Knowledge distillation / [Knowledge distillation for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/distill/knowledge-distillation-for-llms/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.03822/) (2018)
- [Benchmarking Hallucination in Large Language Models based on Unanswerable Math Word Problem](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.03558/) (2024)
- [Detecting (Un)answerability in Large Language Models with Linear Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22449/) (2025)
- [From Blind Solvers to Logical Thinkers: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Integrity on Faulty Mathematical Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18921/) (2024)
- [U-Net: Machine Reading Comprehension with Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.06638/) (2018)
- [Comparing Human Expertise and Large Language Models Embeddings in Content Validity Assessment of Personality Tests](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.12080/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLMs often generate seemingly valid answers to flawed or ill-posed inputs. This is not due to missing knowledge: under discriminative prompting, the same models can mostly identify such issues, yet fail to reflect this in standard generative responses. This reveals a fundamental know-act gap between discriminative recognition and generative behavior. Prior work largely characterizes this issue in narrow settings, such as math word problems or question answering, with limited focus on how to integrate these two modes. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis using FaultyScience, a newly constructed large-scale, cross-disciplinary benchmark of faulty scientific questions. We show that the gap is pervasive and stems from token-level autoregression, which entangles task selection (validate vs. answer) with content generation, preventing discriminative knowledge from being utilized. To address this, we propose DeIllusionLLM, a task-level autoregressive framework that explicitly models this decision. Through self-distillation, the model unifies discriminative judgment and generative reasoning within a single backbone. Empirically, DeIllusionLLM substantially reduces answer-despite-error failures under natural prompting while maintaining general reasoning performance, demonstrating that self-distillation is an effective and scalable solution for bridging the discriminative-generative know-act gap