Join us as we dive into a groundbreaking study that systematically investigates the strengths and fundamental limitations of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), the cutting-edge AI systems behind advanced "thinking" mechanisms like Chain-of-Thought with self-reflection.

Moving beyond traditional, often contaminated, mathematical and coding benchmarks, this research uses controllable puzzle environments like the Tower of Hanoi, Checker Jumping, River Crossing, and Blocks World to precisely manipulate problem complexity and offer unprecedented insights into how LRMs "think".

You'll discover surprising findings, including:

Three distinct performance regimes:

• Standard Large Language Models (LLMs) surprisingly outperform LRMs on low-complexity tasks; LRMs demonstrate an advantage on medium-complexity tasks due to their additional "thinking" processes; but crucially, both model types experience a complete accuracy collapse on high-complexity tasks.

• A counter-intuitive scaling limit: LRMs' reasoning effort, measured by token usage, increases up to a certain complexity point, then paradoxically declines despite having an adequate token budget.

This suggests a fundamental inference-time scaling limitation in their reasoning capabilities relative to problem complexity.

• Inconsistencies and limitations in exact computation: LRMs struggle to benefit from being explicitly given algorithms, failing to improve performance even when provided with step-by-step instructions for puzzles like the Tower of Hanoi

• They also exhibit inconsistent reasoning across different puzzle types, performing many correct moves in one scenario (e.g., Tower of Hanoi) but failing much earlier in another (e.g., River Crossing), indicating potential issues with generalizable reasoning rather than just problem-solving strategy discovery

• "Overthinking" phenomenon: For simpler problems, LRMs often find correct solutions early in their reasoning trace but then continue to inefficiently explore incorrect alternatives, wasting computational effort

This episode challenges prevailing assumptions about LRM capabilities and raises crucial questions about their true reasoning potential, paving the way for future investigations into more robust AI reasoning.

Disclaimer: This podcast is generated by Roger Basler de Roca (contact) by the use of AI. The voices are artificially generated and the discussion is based on public research data. I do not claim any ownership of the presented material as it is for education purpose only.

⁠https://rogerbasler.ch/en/contact/