Humans flexibly adapt their reasoning strategies to the requirements of a given problem. Large language models (LLMs) have performed well on many cognitive tasks, however, it is unclear whether this accuracy is a result of pattern matching from training data or flexible reasoning. Here, we introduce a novel paradigm to test this question: the riddle riddle paradigm. Riddle riddles are word problems written to mimic popular riddles, but altered so their answers only require literal interpretations. Identifying correct answers requires looking past the structure of each question and flexibly apply different reasoning strategies based on the content. If LLMs respond to surface features, such as form, a riddle-like structure should cause models to use an inventive reasoning strategy even when a literal interpretation suffices. Alternatively, if LLMs reason based on content, they should flexibly switch strategies when appropriate. Across two experiments with nine state-of-the-art LLMs and 100 human participants, we show humans and LLMs fail on this paradigm in opposite directions. LLMs were far more accurate on genuine riddles than on riddle riddles (84.9% vs. 50.7%); whereas humans showed the reverse effect (50.5% vs. 80.5%). Error analysis shows that 90.8% of LLM errors on riddle riddles (the condition where they show diminished performance) were due to inappropriate use of inventive reasoning while only 57.6% of human errors on genuine riddles were due to overextending literal reasoning. Thus, while both groups make mistakes, reasoning mistakes are made more often by LLMs than by humans. Overall, LLMs' strong performance on genuine riddles may reflect memory retrieval rather than flexible strategy selection, and without stimuli designed to elicit this contrast, it becomes easy to conflate LLM-generated outputs that look like reasoning with genuine reasoning.
When large language models (LLMs) fail to generalize or make haphazard errors in reasoning, it is often taken as evidence that LLMs are not truly reasoning, but rather performing a kind of pattern matching. The implication is that people's behavior does not exhibit the same types of failures because human reasoning uses principled and abstract world models. We evaluate human participants and 25 LLMs on their ability to engage in common-sense reasoning about a variety of everyday situations and observe similar patterns of errors in both people and models. We then identify the set of attention heads driving LLM responses and find that these heads implement a form of pattern-matching. These attention heads allow us to predict seemingly inexplicable reasoning errors in people caused by ostensibly irrelevant prompt details. Taken together, our results suggest that everyday causal reasoning in people and LLMs is more consistent with a form of pattern-matching than with abstract world models.
Humans effortlessly go beyond literal meanings: If you mow the lawn, I will give you fifty dollars, is typically understood as implying that the speaker will pay only if the lawn is mowed, whereas If you are hungry, there is pizza in the oven implies that pizza is available regardless of the hearers hunger. Large Language Models - LLMs - show human-like performance on many tasks, yet it remains unclear whether they reason like humans. To address this, we conducted a population-matching experiment assessing how twentyfive LLMs compute conditional inferences across four languages, compared to an equal number of humans per language. We find that humans enrich logical reasoning through pragmatic inferences across languages. Model behavior is more variable. Some LLMs perfectly follow the truth-table of conditionals but they ignore pragmatic inferences, while others deviate from the truth-table, adhering to a single interpretation across the board, thus reflecting accurate rule-based processing but not human-like reasoning. Overall, LLMs are accurate semantic operators, but fail to capture the pragmatic enrichments characteristic of human reasoning. Crucially, LLM accuracy is neither predicted nor boosted by open vs. closed status, training orientation, or architecture type, suggesting that pragmatic reasoning is still an emerging ability in the cognitive toolkit of artificial systems.
Paolo Morosi, Nikoleta Pantelidou, Fritz Günther +2
A major question in cognitive modeling concerns the behavioral alignment between large language models and humans across linguistic and non-linguistic tasks. Unlike standard LLMs, large reasoning models (LRMs) are optimized with reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, encouraging correct solutions to reasoning tasks rather than preference-aligned responses. Recent work (de Varda et al., 2025) investigates the cost of thinking in humans and LRMs by comparing human reaction times with model reasoning traces across a range of reasoning tasks. We isolate this alignment by turning to abductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort. We find further evidence of alignment between LRM and human reasoning effort, as well as evidence that models and humans tend to make similar errors. Finally, we show that decoding methods that let models explore multiple reasoning paths increase alignment in reasoning cost between humans and LRMs across the three models tested.