Task Complexity Matters: An Empirical Study of Reasoning in LLMs for Sentiment Analysis

Eliciting explicit, step-by-step reasoning traces from large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing model capabilities. Although such reasoning strategies were originally designed for problems requiring explicit multi-step reasoning, they have increasingly been applied to a broad range of NLP tasks. This expansion implicitly assumes that deliberative reasoning uniformly benefits heterogeneous tasks. However, whether such reasoning mechanisms truly benefit classification tasks remains largely underexplored, especially considering their substantial token and time costs. To fill this gap, we introduce TextReasoningBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of reasoning strategies for text classification with LLMs. We compare seven reasoning strategies, namely IO, CoT, SC-CoT, ToT, GoT, BoC, and long-CoT across ten LLMs on five text classification datasets. Beyond traditional metrics such as accuracy and macro-F1, we introduce two cost-aware evaluation metrics that quantify the performance gain per reasoning token and the efficiency of performance improvement relative to token cost growth. Experimental results reveal three notable findings: (1) Reasoning does not universally improve classification performance: while moderate strategies such as CoT and SC-CoT yield consistent but limited gains (typically +1% to +3% on big models), more complex methods (e.g., ToT and GoT) often fail to outperform simpler baselines and can even degrade performance, especially on small models; (2) Reasoning is often inefficient: many reasoning strategies increase token consumption by 10$\times$ to 100$\times$ (e.g., SC-CoT and ToT) while providing only marginal performance improvements.

Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to generate a long reasoning chain when solving complex tasks. However, as the reasoning chain extends, critical intermediate steps and the original prompt will be buried in the context, receiving insufficient attention and leading to errors. In this work, we present ATAR, a novel reasoning method that leverages the inherent reasoning structure to steer LLM attention. Our experiments show that ATAR outperforms SOTA methods across six benchmarks, achieving up to 15.39% absolute improvement. Furthermore, with ATAR, "non-reasoning" models achieve comparable or even better performance compared to reasoning models of the same size in most benchmarks. Finally, our ablation studies show that the attention alignment component contributes significantly, and that these improvements are persist under different attentionsteering backends.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making. Inspired by the theory of inattentional blindness in human cognition, we investigate whether LLMs, trained on human-preferred corpora that embed attentional biases, exhibit a similar limitation: failing to attend to subtle yet important contextual cues under explicit task instructions. To evaluate this, we introduce the task of explicit-implicit reasoning and present MixRea, a benchmark of 2,246 multiple-choice questions across 9 reasoning types with varying distributions of explicit and implicit information. Evaluation of 21 advanced LLMs shows that even the best-performing reasoning model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieves only 42.8% consistency, revealing widespread inattentional blindness. To mitigate this, we propose Potential Relation Completion Prompting (PRCP), a prompting method that improves reasoning by recovering overlooked causal relations. Further analysis shows that this limitation persists across diverse multi-source reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for more cognitively aligned models.