Paper
When Models Ignore Definitions: Measuring Semantic Override Hallucinations in LLM Reasoning
Authors
Yogeswar Reddy Thota, Setareh Rafatirad, Homayoun Houman, Tooraj Nikoubin
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard digital logic and Boolean reasoning tasks, yet their reliability under locally redefined semantics remains poorly understood. In many formal settings, such as circuit specifications, examinations, and hardware documentation, operators and components are explicitly redefined within narrow scope. Correct reasoning in these contexts requires models to temporarily suppress globally learned conventions in favor of prompt-local definitions. In this work, we study a systematic failure mode we term semantic override, in which an LLM reverts to its pretrained default interpretation of operators or gate behavior despite explicit redefinition in the prompt. We also identify a related class of errors, assumption injection, where models commit to unstated hardware semantics when critical details are underspecified, rather than requesting clarification. We introduce a compact micro-benchmark of 30 logic and digital-circuit reasoning tasks designed as verifier-style traps, spanning Boolean algebra, operator overloading, redefined gates, and circuit-level semantics. Evaluating three frontier LLMs, we observe persistent noncompliance with local specifications, confident but incompatible assumptions, and dropped constraints even in elementary settings. Our findings highlight a gap between surface-level correctness and specification-faithful reasoning, motivating evaluation protocols that explicitly test local unlearning and semantic compliance in formal domains.
Metadata
Related papers
Vibe Coding XR: Accelerating AI + XR Prototyping with XR Blocks and Gemini
Ruofei Du, Benjamin Hersh, David Li, Nels Numan, Xun Qian, Yanhe Chen, Zhongy... • 2026-03-25
Comparing Developer and LLM Biases in Code Evaluation
Aditya Mittal, Ryan Shar, Zichu Wu, Shyam Agarwal, Tongshuang Wu, Chris Donah... • 2026-03-25
The Stochastic Gap: A Markovian Framework for Pre-Deployment Reliability and Oversight-Cost Auditing in Agentic Artificial Intelligence
Biplab Pal, Santanu Bhattacharya • 2026-03-25
Retrieval Improvements Do Not Guarantee Better Answers: A Study of RAG for AI Policy QA
Saahil Mathur, Ryan David Rittner, Vedant Ajit Thakur, Daniel Stuart Schiff, ... • 2026-03-25
MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
Zhuo Li, Yupeng Zhang, Pengyu Cheng, Jiajun Song, Mengyu Zhou, Hao Li, Shujie... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17520v1</id>\n <title>When Models Ignore Definitions: Measuring Semantic Override Hallucinations in LLM Reasoning</title>\n <updated>2026-02-19T16:33:46Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17520v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.17520v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard digital logic and Boolean reasoning tasks, yet their reliability under locally redefined semantics remains poorly understood. In many formal settings, such as circuit specifications, examinations, and hardware documentation, operators and components are explicitly redefined within narrow scope. Correct reasoning in these contexts requires models to temporarily suppress globally learned conventions in favor of prompt-local definitions. In this work, we study a systematic failure mode we term semantic override, in which an LLM reverts to its pretrained default interpretation of operators or gate behavior despite explicit redefinition in the prompt. We also identify a related class of errors, assumption injection, where models commit to unstated hardware semantics when critical details are underspecified, rather than requesting clarification. We introduce a compact micro-benchmark of 30 logic and digital-circuit reasoning tasks designed as verifier-style traps, spanning Boolean algebra, operator overloading, redefined gates, and circuit-level semantics. Evaluating three frontier LLMs, we observe persistent noncompliance with local specifications, confident but incompatible assumptions, and dropped constraints even in elementary settings. Our findings highlight a gap between surface-level correctness and specification-faithful reasoning, motivating evaluation protocols that explicitly test local unlearning and semantic compliance in formal domains.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.AR'/>\n <published>2026-02-19T16:33:46Z</published>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.AR'/>\n <author>\n <name>Yogeswar Reddy Thota</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Setareh Rafatirad</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Homayoun Houman</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Tooraj Nikoubin</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}