Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions

Summary

A new study finds that reasoning models slightly outperform non-reasoning models (2-11% accuracy gain) but still fail to challenge 26-42% of false presuppositions, and are susceptible to presupposition strength.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Rose Sathyanathan, Kinshuk Vasisht, Danish Pruthi
Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2605.03050] Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions

Skip to main content

Learn about arXiv becoming an independent nonprofit.

We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate

> cs > arXiv:2605.03050

Help | Advanced Search

All fields Title Author Abstract Comments Journal reference ACM classification MSC classification Report number arXiv identifier DOI ORCID arXiv author ID Help pages Full text

Search

GO

quick links

Login

Help Pages

About

-->

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2605.03050 (cs)

[Submitted on 4 May 2026]

Title:Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions

Authors:Rose Sathyanathan, Kinshuk Vasisht, Danish Pruthi

View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions, by Rose Sathyanathan and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Millions of users turn to AI models for their information needs. It is conceivable that a large number of user queries contain assumptions that may be factually inaccurate. Prior work notes that large language models (LLMs) often fail to challenge such erroneous assumptions, and can reinforce users' misinformed opinions. However, given the recent advances, especially in model's reasoning capabilities, we revisit whether large reasoning models (LRMs) can reason about the underlying assumptions and respond to user queries appropriately. We construct queries with varying degrees of presuppositions spanning health, science, and general knowledge, and use it to evaluate several widely-deployed models When compared to non-reasoning models, we find that reasoning models achieve a slightly higher accuracy (2-11%), but they still fail to challenge a large fraction (26-42%) of false presuppositions. Further, reasoning models remain susceptible to how strongly the presupposition is expressed.

Comments: Accepted to ACL 2026 (Findings)

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Cite as: arXiv:2605.03050 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2605.03050v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.03050

Focus to learn more

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Rose Sathyanathan [view email] [v1] Mon, 4 May 2026 18:15:28 UTC (138 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions, by Rose Sathyanathan and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-05

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×

loading...

Data provided by:

Bookmark

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

About

Help

contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact

subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe

Copyright

Privacy Policy

Web Accessibility Assistance

arXiv Operational Status

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Researchers constructed queries with varying presuppositions across health, science, and general knowledge.
  • Reasoning models showed only 2-11% higher accuracy, failing 26-42% of false presuppositions.
  • Models are more likely to accept stronger presuppositions.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.