mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Would You Walk to the Car Wash? Revealing the Salience Bias of Large Language Models in Commonsense Reasoning

arXiv 2607.28478 ↗First posted 30 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite advances in complex reasoning, large language models (LLMs) can prioritize explicit input conditions over implicit task prerequisites. In everyday commonsense reasoning, this can lead to a failure we term Salience Bias: salient but task-irrelevant details (e.g., numerical values) draw models into computation while they overlook the physical or commonsense prerequisites of the task. A critical open question is whether this failure reflects a genuine gap in commonsense knowledge or merely its suppression under misleading task framing. To investigate this, we construct the SaliTrap Benchmark, comprising 1,145 items in four trap dimensions. Evaluating 12 LLMs, we find substantial vulnerability across the tested models, with higher numerical distractor counts associated with lower trap-avoidance rates and trap recognition not always leading to avoidance. Further probing of sycophantic-compliance cases shows that the relevant commonsense can often be elicited when the original task framing is removed, suggesting a gap between recognizing a constraint and applying it during task execution. Building on this diagnosis, we further show that lightweight, inference-time prompting alone substantially closes the gap without any retraining. Our findings highlight the importance of applying commonsense constraints during task execution, and we release SaliTrap as a testbed for studying this gap. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/SaliTrap

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 13 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2026.

Builds on

13 of 37 references.

References · 13

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  3. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
  4. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  5. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  6. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
  7. 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
  8. 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 533
  9. 2025Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligencecited by 523
  10. 2026GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineeringcited by 502
  11. 2023On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspectivecited by 208
  12. 2025A Survey on (M)LLM-Based GUI Agentscited by 61
1 more
  1. 2026The MiniMax-M2 Series: Mini Activations Unleashing Max Real-World Intelligencecited by 50

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Com2: A Causal-Guided Benchmark for Exploring Complex Commonsense Reasoning in Large Language Models
  2. 2024LINKED: Eliciting, Filtering and Integrating Knowledge in Large Language Model for Commonsense Reasoning
  3. 2026Abductive Reasoning with Probabilistic Commonsense
  4. 2025Towards Evaluting Fake Reasoning Bias in Language Models
  5. 2025Large Reasoning Models are not thinking straight: on the unreliability of thinking trajectories
  6. 2025LLMs are Single-threaded Reasoners: Demystifying the Working Mechanism of Soft Thinking
  7. 2026Compliance vs. Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models
  8. 2025When Can Large Reasoning Models Save Thinking? Mechanistic Analysis of Behavioral Divergence in Reasoning