Large reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in various tasks. However, we observe that they frequently exhibit a problematic reliance on familiar reasoning patterns, a phenomenon we term reasoning rigidity. Despite explicit instructions from users, these models often override clearly stated conditions and default to habitual reasoning, leading to incorrect conclusions. This behavior presents significant challenges, not only in reasoning-intensive domains but also in realistic settings. To systematically investigate reasoning rigidity, a behavior unexplored in prior work, we introduce a dataset, ReasoningTrap, consisting of math problems, puzzles, and agentic tasks designed to diagnose reasoning rigidity. Using this dataset, we identify patterns that occur when models default to ingrained reasoning, and suggest inference-level and GRPO-based post-training remedies. Our diagnostic set and evaluation code are available at the project page to facilitate future research on mitigating reasoning rigidity in language models.

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs. The models show F1 scores of 0.4–0.5 and kappa scores of 0.3–0.4, indicating moderate agreement but also suggesting that fully automating the evaluation remains challenging. A thorough disagreement analysis reveals that most errors are due to models’ incorrect reasoning. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality.