How Language Models Conflate Logical Validity with Plausibility: A Representational Analysis of Content Effects

Logical validity and real-world plausibility sit along nearly the same linear direction inside LLM activation space, and how aligned those directions are predicts how strongly a model's validity judgments are biased by content.

The test set is 1,280 syllogisms covering all 64 syllogism types, balanced across valid/invalid and plausible/implausible conclusions, run on 10 instruction-tuned models from Qwen-2.5, Qwen-3 and Gemma-3 (4B-32B) under zero-shot and CoT prompting. Difference-in-means vectors for validity and plausibility were extracted per layer and used for steering, with hypernymy and harmfulness classification as controls for shared binary-task structure.

Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct shows content effect 0.348 zero-shot, falling to 0.096 with CoT; Qwen3-14B goes 0.213 to 0.014. Validity-plausibility cosine similarity is 0.48 to 0.64 versus 0.10 to 0.13 and -0.12 to -0.17 for the controls. A mixed-effects regression over 57 model-prompt points gives similarity as a positive predictor of content effect (β = 0.557, p = 0.017). Plausibility vectors flip validity judgments and vice versa. A task-difference vector scaled by α = 1.5 cuts CE to 0.072 and 0.043 while raising accuracy (86.54 to 96.70 for Qwen3-14B).

The causal claim is measured via steering with control concepts, so entanglement is isolated from task-format artifacts. Why the conflation arises is conjectured from training-data soundness, not tested; representations come only from the residual stream at the final token before the judgment, and the account does not explain why CoT lowers bias despite similar geometry. One dataset, one reasoning form, 3 model families.

If you treat content bias as a prompting problem, this locates it in geometry you can edit at inference time.