Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2602.06176v1

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional reasoning capabilities, achieving impressive results across various tasks. However, despite these advancements, significant reasoning failures persist. To address these shortcomings comprehensively, a detailed survey focusing on reasoning failures in LLMs has been presented. The survey introduces a novel categorization framework that distinguishes reasoning into embodied and non-embodied types, with the latter further divided into informal (intuitive) and formal (logical) reasoning. Additionally, reasoning failures are classified into three types: fundamental failures intrinsic to LLM architectures affecting downstream tasks broadly; application-specific limitations appearing in specific domains; and robustness issues characterized by inconsistent performance across minor variations. The survey delves into each reasoning failure by providing clear definitions, analyzing existing studies, exploring root causes, and presenting mitigation strategies. By consolidating fragmented research efforts, the survey offers a structured perspective on systemic weaknesses in LLM reasoning to guide future research towards developing stronger and more reliable reasoning capabilities. Furthermore,a comprehensive collection of research works on LLM reasoning failures has been released as a GitHub repository to facilitate easy access to this area of study. Moving forward,the survey highlights several gaps and opportunities for future directions in addressing reasoning failures in LLMs.It emphasizes the need for complete root cause analyses for various failures such as compositionalreasoning breakdowns and physical commonsense gaps.The field could benefit from unified failure benchmarks spanning all types of failures to enable longitudinal tracking of persistence over time.Moreover,injecting failure principles into generalreasoning benchmarks could enhance evaluation comprehensiveness and resistance to short-term overfitting. The survey also acknowledges potential biases in existing literature towards certain types ofreasoning or failure categories while underrepresenting others like multi-turn interactive contexts.Future work should expand benchmark diversity to capture realistic interactive settings better. Overall understandingand categorizingfailure modes are crucial for building resilient systems as evidenced by early computing fault-tolerance research and incident analysis in safety-critical industries. In conclusion,as reasoning-specialized models become more prevalent,sustained attention to anticipating,detecting,and mitigating reasoning failures will be essential for ensuring that future LLMs not only excel at performing tasks but also handle failures gracefully and transparently.

• - Large Language Models (LLMs) have exceptional reasoning capabilities across various tasks
• - A detailed survey on reasoning failures in LLMs introduces a novel categorization framework:
• - Reasoning categorized into embodied and non-embodied types (informal and formal reasoning)
• - Reasoning failures classified into fundamental, application-specific, and robustness issues
• - The survey analyzes each reasoning failure with clear definitions, existing studies, root causes, and mitigation strategies
• - A GitHub repository has been released with research works on LLM reasoning failures for easy access
• - Future directions include:
• - Complete root cause analyses for failures like compositional reasoning breakdowns and physical commonsense gaps
• - Unified failure benchmarks to track persistence over time
• - Injecting failure principles into general reasoning benchmarks for better evaluation comprehensiveness
• - Expanding benchmark diversity to capture realistic interactive settings better
• - Understanding and categorizing failure modes are crucial for building resilient systems as seen in early fault-tolerance research in computing and safety-critical industries
• - Sustained attention to anticipating, detecting, and mitigating reasoning failures is essential for future LLMs to excel at tasks gracefully and transparently

Summary- Large Language Models (LLMs) are really smart at figuring things out in different tasks. - A study looked at why LLMs sometimes make mistakes and came up with a new way to group these mistakes. - The study divided reasoning into two types: informal (everyday thinking) and formal (logical thinking). - Mistakes in reasoning were sorted into basic issues, task-specific problems, and difficulties with staying accurate. - The study looked at each mistake closely, explaining what it means, past research on it, why it happens, and how to fix it. Definitions- Large Language Models (LLMs): Very smart computer programs that can understand and generate human language. - Reasoning: Thinking through problems or questions to come up with answers or solutions. - Embodied reasoning: Using real-world experiences or physical interactions to think about things. - Non-embodied reasoning: Thinking without relying on real-life experiences or physical actions. - Fundamental issues: Basic problems that affect the core functioning of something. - Application-specific issues: Problems that only show up when using something for a particular task or purpose. - Robustness issues: Difficulties in keeping something working well under different conditions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been making headlines in recent years for their impressive reasoning capabilities. These models, such as GPT-3 and BERT, have shown remarkable performance across various tasks, from language translation to question answering. However, despite these advancements, significant reasoning failures still persist in LLMs. To address these shortcomings comprehensively, a team of researchers has conducted a detailed survey focusing on reasoning failures in LLMs. The survey introduces a novel categorization framework that distinguishes reasoning into embodied and non-embodied types. Embodied reasoning refers to the ability to reason about physical objects and actions, while non-embodied reasoning involves abstract concepts and logical thinking. Within the category of non-embodied reasoning, two subtypes are identified: informal (intuitive) and formal (logical) reasoning. Informal reasoning is based on intuition or common sense knowledge, while formal reasoning follows strict rules of logic. This categorization allows for a more nuanced understanding of different types of failures in LLMs. The survey also classifies reasoning failures into three types: fundamental failures intrinsic to LLM architectures affecting downstream tasks broadly; application-specific limitations appearing in specific domains; and robustness issues characterized by inconsistent performance across minor variations. By systematically analyzing existing studies on each type of failure, the survey provides clear definitions and explores root causes. One major finding from the survey is that many fundamental failures are inherent to LLM architectures themselves. For example, compositional reasoning breakdowns occur when an LLM struggles with understanding complex sentences that involve multiple clauses or modifiers. Physical commonsense gaps refer to situations where an LLM lacks basic knowledge about how the physical world works. To mitigate these fundamental failures, researchers suggest incorporating external knowledge sources or designing specialized modules within the model architecture specifically for handling certain types of information or tasks. Application-specific limitations are another type of failure identified by the survey. These refer to cases where an LLM performs well on general tasks but struggles with specific domains or datasets. For example, an LLM may excel at language translation in general but fail to accurately translate medical terminology. Robustness issues are also a significant concern for LLMs. These refer to situations where minor changes in input can drastically affect the model's performance. This lack of robustness makes it challenging to deploy LLMs in real-world settings where data is constantly changing. To address these robustness issues, researchers suggest incorporating adversarial training techniques or designing models that are more resilient to small variations in input. In addition to providing a comprehensive analysis of reasoning failures, the survey also offers suggestions for future research directions. One key recommendation is the need for complete root cause analyses for various failures, such as compositional reasoning breakdowns and physical commonsense gaps. The survey also highlights the importance of developing unified failure benchmarks that span all types of failures. This would enable researchers to track persistence over time and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of model performance. Moreover, injecting failure principles into general reasoning benchmarks could enhance evaluation comprehensiveness and resistance to short-term overfitting. By including failure scenarios in benchmark tasks, models will be evaluated not only on their ability to perform well but also on their resilience against potential failures. The survey also acknowledges potential biases in existing literature towards certain types of reasoning or failure categories while underrepresenting others like multi-turn interactive contexts. Future work should expand benchmark diversity to capture realistic interactive settings better. Overall, understanding and categorizing failure modes are crucial for building resilient systems as evidenced by early computing fault-tolerance research and incident analysis in safety-critical industries. As reasoning-specialized models become more prevalent, sustained attention to anticipating, detecting, and mitigating reasoning failures will be essential for ensuring that future LLMs not only excel at performing tasks but also handle failures gracefully and transparently. To facilitate easy access to this area of study, the survey also includes a comprehensive collection of research works on LLM reasoning failures as a GitHub repository. This will allow researchers and practitioners to stay updated on the latest developments in this field. In conclusion, while LLMs have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities, there is still much work to be done in addressing their failures comprehensively. The survey provides a structured perspective on systemic weaknesses in LLM reasoning and offers valuable insights for future research directions. By focusing on anticipating, detecting, and mitigating reasoning failures, we can ensure that future LLMs not only excel at performing tasks but also handle failures gracefully and transparently.