# Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01867 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01867/

## 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 29 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [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)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1701.06538/) (2017)
- [The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09751/) (2019)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06769/) (2024)
- [Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20534/) (2025)
- [GLM-4.5: Agentic, Reasoning, and Coding (ARC) Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06471/) (2025)
- [Abductive Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.05739/) (2019)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10200/) (2024)
- [Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15758/) (2024)
- [MedCaseReasoning: Evaluating and learning diagnostic reasoning from clinical case reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11733/) (2025)
- [Dissociating language and thought in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.06627/) (2023)
- [Contextual Temperature for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.13575/) (2020)
- [Wait, Wait, Wait... Why Do Reasoning Models Loop?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.12895/) (2025)
- [Think Deep, Not Just Long: Measuring LLM Reasoning Effort via Deep-Thinking Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.13517/) (2026)
- [Frontier LLMs Still Struggle with Simple Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07313/) (2025)
- [Wiring the 'Why': A Unified Taxonomy and Survey of Abductive Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08016/) (2026)
- [Abductive Reasoning with Syllogistic Forms in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06428/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.