Does Reasoning Improve Psychological Depth in Large Language Models? It Depends on Who's Judging

Strategic depth of reasoning is essential for human interaction of Large Language Models (LLMs) operating in boundedly rational environments. However, existing evaluations are primarily based on canonical games prevalent in pretraining corpora, making it difficult to disentangle true strategic reasoning from memorisation. To address this, we formalise a necessary level-K distinguishability condition for strategic depth inference and construct a suite of novel game structures that meet this standard. Using these games, we evaluate strategic depth in LLMs from both the Chain-of-Thought tokens and actual actions under recursive reasoning and an inductive trace of opponent game-play data. Across experimental trials spanning four LLMs, four game structures, and ten levels of iterated reasoning, we find that model models maintain accurate strategic depth under recursive reasoning, with strong internal consistency between stated reasoning and actions at every level. Errors arise from using the wrong number of iterated depth of reasoning steps, not from computing best responses incorrectly. However, inductive inference from opponent play degrades accuracy sharply and unevenly across games, and explicit strategic mentalizing in the chain of thought substantially improves overall performance.

Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design these judges. Typically, researchers choose the prompt, rating scale, and model intuitively. If these choices change the judge's verdicts, two studies can reach different conclusions about the same facts. To address this risk and to provide an empirical basis for judge designs, we evaluate 10 reasoning models across multiple designs on two tasks: a scalar rating of sentence sentiment and toxicity (over 500 items per category), as well as a binary accuracy classification of question-answer pairs (n=600). For the rating tasks, despite judges showing significant disagreements with the human ground truth, the practical size of differences is small enough to consider most judges reliable (mean absolute deviation of 0.11 points on a 1 - 7 scale); toxicity judges even outperform standard classifiers. Judges are also highly accurate on average (96.5%) for the accuracy classification task. However, design choices can produce shifts: changing the rating scale alone can shift measured bias by up to 0.93 points (rating task), and while accuracy levels are rarely impacted, design choices consistently impact judge leniency (classification task; leniency drop of 28.9 percentage points when using detailed prompts, and up to 56.1 percentage points when switching models). Counterintuitively, lower reasoning effort affects neither accuracy nor leniency. Across both tasks, model identity is the dominant source of variance. These findings suggest that while LLM judges are broadly trustworthy in aggregate, design choices can be meaningful sources of variance. Given the growing reliance on automated evaluation in LLM research, we intend this study as a methodological reference for designing more robust and replicable LLM-as-a-judge pipelines.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities by scaling test-time compute via long Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, recent findings suggest that raw token counts are unreliable proxies for reasoning quality: increased generation length does not consistently correlate with accuracy and may instead signal "overthinking," leading to performance degradation. In this work, we quantify inference-time effort by identifying deep-thinking tokens -- tokens where internal predictions undergo significant revisions in deeper model layers prior to convergence. Across four challenging mathematical and scientific benchmarks (AIME 24/25, HMMT 25, and GPQA-diamond) and a diverse set of reasoning-focused models (GPT-OSS, DeepSeek-R1, and Qwen3), we show that deep-thinking ratio (the proportion of deep-thinking tokens in a generated sequence) exhibits a robust and consistently positive correlation with accuracy, substantially outperforming both length-based and confidence-based baselines. Leveraging this insight, we introduce Think@n, a test-time scaling strategy that prioritizes samples with high deep-thinking ratios. We demonstrate that Think@n matches or exceeds standard self-consistency performance while significantly reducing inference costs by enabling the early rejection of unpromising generations based on short prefixes.