More Thinking, More Bias: Length-Driven Position Bias in Reasoning Models

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 21 Apr 2026] More Thinking, More Bias: Length-Driven Position Bias in Reasoning Models Xiao Wang Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and reasoning-tuned models such as DeepSeek-R1 are commonly assumed to reduce shallow heuristic biases by thinking carefully. We test this on position bias in multiple-choice QA and find a different story: within any reasoning-capable model, per-question position bias scales with the length of the reasoning trajectory. Across thirteen reasoning-mode configurations (two R1-distilled 7-8B models, two base models prompted with CoT, and DeepSeek-R1 at 671B) on MMLU, ARC-Challenge, and GPQA, twelve show a positive partial correlation between trajectory length and Position Bias Score (PBS) after controlling for accuracy, ranging from 0.11 to 0.41 (all p < 0.05). All twelve open-weight reasoning-mode configurations show monotonically increasing PBS across length quartiles. A truncation intervention provides causal evidence: continuations resumed from later points in the trajectory are increasingly likely to shift toward position-preferred options (16% to 32% for R1-Qwen-7B across absolute-position buckets). At 671B, aggregate PBS collapses to 0.019, but the length effect still manifests in the longest quartile (PBS = 0.071), suggesting that accuracy gates the expression of length-driven bias rather than eliminating the underlying mechanism. We additionally find that direct-answer position bias is a distinct phenomenon with a different footprint (strong in Llama-Instruct-direct, weak in Qwen-Instruct-direct, and uncorrelated with trajectory length): CoT reasoning replaces this baseline bias with length-accumulated bias. Our results argue that reasoning-capable models should not be treated as order-robust by default in MCQ evaluation pipelines, and offer a diagnostic toolkit (PBS, commitment change point, effective switching, truncation probes) for auditing position bias in reasoning models. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2605.06672 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.06672v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.06672 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Xiao Wang [view email] [v1] Tue, 21 Apr 2026 04:14:13 UTC (94 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL cs.LG References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation 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 Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)