Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making. Inspired by the theory of \emph{inattentional blindness} in human cognition, we investigate whether LLMs, trained on human-preferred corpora that embed attentional biases, exhibit a similar limitation: \emph{failing to attend to subtle yet important contextual cues under explicit task instructions}. To evaluate this, we introduce the task of \textbf{explicit-implicit reasoning} and present \textbf{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 \textbf{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.
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in complex reasoning tasks, they have learned to heavily prioritize explicit conditions provided in the input. However, in everyday commonsense reasoning, this mechanism exposes a critical vulnerability which we term Salience Bias: models become easily hijacked by useless explicit distractors (e.g., numerical values), leading them to ignore the implicit physical or commonsense prerequisites of a task. A critical open question is whether this failure reflects a genuine gap in commonsense knowledge or merely its suppression under misleading task framing. To investigate this, we construct the SaliTrap Benchmark, a high-quality dataset across four trap dimensions. Evaluating 12 state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that all mainstream models suffer significantly from salience bias, with severity scaling with distractor density and detecting the trap often decoupled from actually avoiding it. Crucially, by re-eliciting the same models with the task framing stripped away, we show that this is overwhelmingly a failure of \textbf{knowledge suppression rather than knowledge absence}: a context-free knowledge probe alone recovers over 90% of sycophantic-compliance failures, revealing that the requisite commonsense is intrinsically present but actively crowded out by salient distractors that lure the model into over-compliant, unnecessary computation. Building on this diagnosis, we further show that lightweight, inference-time prompting alone substantially closes the gap without any retraining. Our findings relocate the bottleneck of commonsense reasoning failures from model competence to elicitation, and we release SaliTrap as a testbed for this blind spot. The codes are available at https://github.com/Wuzheng02/SaliTrap.
Characterizing LLM reasoning remains an open challenge, as many existing benchmarks isolate specific reasoning skills, rely on external knowledge, or are costly to extend. We introduce PetriBench, a compact, fully self-contained, and scalable benchmark for evaluating LLM reasoning over dynamic state spaces using Petri nets, a mature formalism for modeling real-world concurrent and distributed systems. PetriBench organizes reasoning into four task families varying by scope and temporal horizon, with Easy, Medium, and Hard levels generated by increasing structural complexity and evaluated against exact ground truth. Across a diverse set of proprietary and open-weight models, accuracy decreases consistently with difficulty, while harder instances expose increasingly distinct task-specific capability profiles. Additional analyses show that test-time compute improves performance but interacts differently with different reasoning tasks, and that procedural generation yields smooth scaling with structural complexity. Together, these results show that PetriBench provides a unified and extensible setting for probing the strengths, limits, and scaling behavior of LLM reasoning.
We introduce a multi-turn interactive framework for reasoning evaluation that treats reasoning as active evidence acquisition and belief updating. Wherein, LLMs receive only the task rules, must issue targeted queries to a hidden environment, integrate partial observations over time, and decide when to submit a final answer. Beyond standard success rate and interaction efficiency, we evaluate contextual robustness under controlled contextual perturbations, and metacognitive adaptation through counterfactual revision and necessity judgment. We instantiate the framework as a benchmark of 474 executable games, each evaluated under five fixed configuration search spaces corresponding to five difficulty levels, and evaluate a broad set of frontier LLMs. Results show that the benchmark is highly discriminative, exposing large differences not only in success rate but also in interaction efficiency. Moreover, we empirically show that contextual perturbations cause moderate but consistent declines, whereas counterfactual revision and necessity judgment lead to much larger drops.