Nikolaos Aletras
Publications
Compliance versus Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models
Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) practices. However, whether fundamental reasoning patterns, such as induction, deduction, and abduction, can be decoupled from specific problem instances remains a critical challenge for model controllability, and for shedding light on reasoning controllability. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of this problem through the lens of reasoning conflicts: an explicit tension between parametric and contextual information induced by mandating logical schemata that deviate from those expected for a target task. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs consistently prioritize sensibility over compliance, favoring task-appropriate reasoning patterns despite conflicting instructions. Notably, task accuracy is not strictly determined by sensibility, with models often maintaining high performance even when using conflicting patterns, suggesting a reliance on internalized parametric memory that increases with model size. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores significantly drop during conflicting episodes. Probing experiments confirm that reasoning types are linearly encoded from middle-to-late layers, indicating the potential for activation-level controllability. Leveraging these insights, we steer models towards compliance, increasing instruction following by up to 29%. Overall, our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data, offering a path toward improved controllability, faithfulness, and generalizability.
Reasoning Dynamics and the Limits of Monitoring Modality Reliance in Vision-Language Models
Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear. We analyze reasoning dynamics in 18 VLMs covering instruction-tuned and reasoning-trained models from two different model families. We track confidence over Chain-of-Thought (CoT), measure the corrective effect of reasoning, and evaluate the contribution of intermediate reasoning steps. We find that models are prone to answer inertia, in which early commitments to a prediction are reinforced, rather than revised during reasoning steps. While reasoning-trained models show stronger corrective behavior, their gains depend on modality conditions, from text-dominant to vision-only settings. Using controlled interventions with misleading textual cues, we show that models are consistently influenced by these cues even when visual evidence is sufficient, and assess whether this influence is recoverable from CoT. Although this influence can appear in the CoT, its detectability varies across models and depends on what is being monitored. Reasoning-trained models are more likely to explicitly refer to the cues, but their longer and fluent CoTs can still appear visually grounded while actually following textual cues, obscuring modality reliance. In contrast, instruction-tuned models refer to the cues less explicitly, but their shorter traces reveal inconsistencies with the visual input. Taken together, these findings indicate that CoT provides only a partial view of how different modalities drive VLM decisions, with important implications for the transparency and safety of multimodal systems.
An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shift
Preference tuning aligns pretrained language models to human judgments of quality, helpfulness, or safety by optimizing over explicit preference signals rather than likelihood alone. Prior work has shown that preference-tuning degrades performance and reduces helpfulness when evaluated outside the training domain. However, the extent to which adaptation strategies mitigate this domain shift remains unexplored. We address this challenge by conducting a comprehensive and systematic study of alignment generalization under domain shift. We compare five popular alignment objectives and various adaptation strategies from source to target, including target-domain supervised fine-tuning and pseudo-labeling, across summarization and question-answering helpfulness tasks. Our findings reveal systematic differences in generalization across alignment objectives under domain shift. We show that adaptation strategies based on pseudo-labeling can substantially reduce domain-shift degradation