Reasoning has become a central paradigm for large language models (LLMs), consistently boosting accuracy across diverse benchmarks. Yet its suitability for precision-sensitive use remains unclear. We present the first systematic study of reasoning for classification tasks under strict low false positive rate (FPR) regimes. Our analysis covers two tasks—safety detection and hallucination detection—evaluated in both fine-tuned and zero-shot settings, using standard LLMs and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs). Our results reveal a clear trade-off: Think On (reasoning-augmented) generation improves overall accuracy, but performs poorly at the low-FPR thresholds essential for practical use. In contrast, Think Off (no reasoning during inference) dominates in these precision-sensitive regimes, with Think On surpassing only when higher FPRs are acceptable. In addition, we find token-based scoring substantially outperforms self-verbalized confidence for precision-sensitive deployments. Finally, a simple ensemble of the two modes recovers the strengths of each. Taken together, our findings position reasoning as a double-edged tool: beneficial for average accuracy, but often ill-suited for applications requiring strict precision.

Aligned representations across languages is a desired property in multilingual large language models (mLLMs), as alignment can improve performance in cross-lingual tasks. Typically alignment requires fine-tuning a model, which is computationally expensive, and sizable language data, which often may not be available. A data-efficient alternative to fine-tuning is model interventions — a method for manipulating model activations to steer generation into the desired direction. We analyze the effect of a popular intervention (finding experts) on the alignment of cross-lingual representations in mLLMs. We identify the neurons to manipulate for a given language and introspect the embedding space of mLLMs pre- and post-manipulation. We show that modifying the mLLM’s activations changes its embedding space such that cross-lingual alignment is enhanced. Further, we show that the changes to the embedding space translate into improved downstream performance on retrieval tasks, with up to 2x improvements in top-1 accuracy on cross-lingual retrieval.

Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) in Language Models (LMs) is key to improving their safety and reliability. Evaluations often use metrics like AUROC to assess how well UQ methods (e.g., negative sequence probabilities) correlate with task correctness functions (e.g., ROUGE-L). We show that mutual biases-when both UQ methods and correctness functions are biased by the same factors-systematically distort evaluation. First, we formally prove that any mutual bias non-randomly skews AUROC rankings, compromising benchmark integrity. Second, we confirm this happens empirically by testing 7 widely used correctness functions, from lexical-based and embedding-based metrics to LM-as-a-judge approaches, across 4 datasets × 4 models × 8 UQ methods. Our analysis showsthat length biases in correctness functions distort UQ assessments by interacting with length biases in UQ methods. We identify LM-as-a-judge methods as the least length-biased, offering a promising path for a fairer UQ evaluation.