CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 26, 2026

Humans Disengage, Reasoning Models Persist: Separating Difficulty Registration from Deliberation Allocation

arXiv AI Archived Jun 26, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.26502v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) take longer on harder problems, just as humans do. This surface similarity hides an opposite pattern within items. When an LRM gets a problem wrong, it spends more tokens than when it gets the same problem right; humans do the reverse, spending less time on the trials they get wrong. We separate two levels of deliberation: how response time tracks difficulty across items (registration), and, with item identity held fix

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 25 Jun 2026] Humans Disengage, Reasoning Models Persist: Separating Difficulty Registration from Deliberation Allocation Han-yu Wang Large reasoning models (LRMs) take longer on harder problems, just as humans do. This surface similarity hides an opposite pattern within items. When an LRM gets a problem wrong, it spends more tokens than when it gets the same problem right; humans do the reverse, spending less time on the trials they get wrong. We separate two levels of deliberation: how response time tracks difficulty across items (registration), and, with item identity held fixed, whether an agent spends more on its own failures or successes (allocation). On a public matched human-LRM corpus, humans and all five thinking LRMs reproduce the known cross-item alignment (registration) but diverge within items (allocation): every LRM shows a large wrong-vs-right effect (Cohen's d = 1.47-3.13 on H-ARC) while humans show the opposite sign. The comparison stays inside each agent's own scale; we never put seconds and tokens on one axis. The dissociation holds under item fixed effects, replicates across datasets, and is absent in a non-thinking baseline. We read the human pattern as engagement versus abandonment: people stay on items they expect to solve and give up on the rest. We read the LRM pattern as length driven by uncertainty: chains grow when the model is unsure, which is exactly when it tends to fail. Both policies produce the same cross-item correlation with difficulty, so they look aligned on the measure prior work has used; the divergence shows up only once item identity is fixed. Under resource-rational metareasoning, the split is between two stopping policies that share a difficulty signal but implement opposite control; trace length captures the signal and misses the control. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2606.26502 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2606.26502v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.26502 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Han-Yu Wang [view email] [v1] Thu, 25 Jun 2026 01:21:53 UTC (248 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Jun 26, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 26, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗