Zipeng Ling, Shuliang Liu, Seonil Son, Shenghong Fu, Yuehao Tang, Yao Wan, Xuming Hu
Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly used for various tasks, often coupled with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to boost accuracy. Recent work has shown that high label-prediction accuracy does not guarantee correct intermediate reasoning, and the causes of *reasoning flaws* vary from sample to sample, yet existing remedies either focus on a single domain or assume that one flaw type applies uniformly across samples. A simple mitigation method is to provide the model with the correct answer, but we show that this yields no consistent improvement in reasoning quality. This indicates that the problem cannot be fixed by LLMs' awareness of answers, and must instead be addressed through the *structure* of reasoning. Motivated by this, we propose CRAFT (Consensus Reasoning knowledge graph Aggregation for Flaw-aware Trace synthesis), which aggregates the consensus components shared across multiple candidate reasoning traces to synthesize improved ones. CRAFT consistently improves label-prediction accuracy on both logical and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming most baselines, while its post-processed traces achieve higher quality under fine-grained benchmark evaluation.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to abstain from answering questions they are unsure about. However, this ability is often misapplied: in real-world applications, user prompts sometimes contain elements of uncertainty, which lead LLMs to abstain even on problems they are capable of solving. We argue that LLM abstention is not only an expression of genuine uncertainty; it can also be an artifact largely shaped by prompts. We name this phenomenon *Abstention Inflation*. We add "Unknown" as an extra option for LLMs to choose from; experiments show serious accuracy drops on True/False Questions (TFQs). Replacing "Unknown" with an unrelated random word produces a similar effect. We argue that LLMs are trained to imitate the surface pattern of abstention, rather than to express genuine uncertainty. Based on ten experimental settings, we support four claims that form a progressive argument: **(C1)** *Abstention Inflation* can be triggered by the presence of an extra option, not by genuine uncertainty; **(C2)** it makes the models deny they can answer, even when they can; **(C3)** it is a later-layer output override, as the reasoning traces and mid-layer representations preserve correct answers; **(C4)** it is not stochastic noise: it results from various factors, emerges through instruction tuning, is boosted by problems' higher difficulty, and can be mitigated at larger model sizes.