arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

The Long Road to the Same Answer: Cognitive Bias Under Escalating Reasoning Budgets in Large Language Models

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2610.10049 (cs)
[Submitted on 7 Oct 2026]

Title:The Long Road to the Same Answer: Cognitive Bias Under Escalating Reasoning Budgets in Large Language Models

View a PDF of the paper titled The Long Road to the Same Answer: Cognitive Bias Under Escalating Reasoning Budgets in Large Language Models, by Obada Kraishan
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Reasoning models allocate extra computation at inference time and present their answers as the product of deliberate thought. If this deliberation works the way dual-process accounts of human cognition suggest, longer thinking should weaken the classic decision biases that fast, intuitive judgment produces. Using 30 vignettes covering six biases (anchoring, framing, loss aversion, escalation of commitment, availability, confirmation) from an established benchmark, we run a dose-response study across four model families, pairing each reasoning model with a matched non-reasoning sibling and requesting thinking ceilings of 0, 1,024, 4,096, and 8,192 tokens, for 12,350 API calls. Because a requested ceiling is not the same as realized deliberation, we use the reasoning tokens each call consumed as the dose. First, reasoning models are not less biased than their siblings; the point estimate leans the other way in every family, but the item-level pooled contrast is not reliable (Delta = +0.031, t(29) = 1.45, p = .157). Second, bias magnitude does not reliably fall as realized deliberation grows: no slope is significantly negative, and where anything moves it is the signed score drifting further from the human direction. Third, anchoring is the only bias in the human direction (d = 1.89). Four of the other five lean the opposite way in all seven models; with five items per bias, that reversal is reliable for framing and directional for escalation of commitment, confirmation, and loss aversion, while availability is absent. A one-line instruction to restate the anchor before answering lowered anchoring on all five anchoring items, which no amount of additional thinking did, although the effect does not reach significance (p = .057). The results argue against treating test-time reasoning as a rationality guarantee and for auditing deployed models bias by bias.
Comments: Accepted at the 2026 IEEE 8th International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (IEEE CogMI 2026). 8 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables. Code and data: this https URL
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.10049 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2610.10049v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.10049
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Obada Kraishan [view email]
[v1] Wed, 7 Oct 2026 13:23:51 UTC (74 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled The Long Road to the Same Answer: Cognitive Bias Under Escalating Reasoning Budgets in Large Language Models, by Obada Kraishan
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Additional Features

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
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?)
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.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language