arXiv:2606. 30128v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting improves LLM reasoning, but the source is contested: do the intermediate steps help because they carry useful semantic content, or because conditioning on more tokens buys extra computation before the model commits to an answer?
arXiv:2607. 11266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it often incurs substantial computational costs due to over-reasoning: the generation of redundant, verbose, or irrelevant steps.
arXiv:2607. 29062v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model capabilities have improved in large part due to scaling chain of thought.
arXiv:2608. 03291v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process.
arXiv:2604.23351v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Whether intermediate reasoning is computationally useful or merely explanatory depends on whether chain-of-thought (CoT) tokens contain task-...
arXiv:2607. 09786v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Length-penalized reinforcement learning can shorten chain-of-thought reasoning while hiding an influence that drives the model's answer.
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.
arXiv:2608.31066v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves multi-step problem solving, but long reasoning traces inflate inference cost. Token-level CoT compression red...
arXiv:2607. 22629v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) produce long, explicit chains of intermediate steps before generating a final answer at inference time.
arXiv:2608.29956v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete p...
arXiv:2606. 05402v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process.
arXiv:2608. 00422v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent reasoning traces that nevertheless lead to incorrect answers, making response-level uncertainty estimation important for abstention, human review, and adaptive compute allocation.
The study investigates whether the reasoning steps a language model writes are causally responsible for its answers. Using a causal intervention method on the activation stream, the authors find that for Qwen3-4B, about 77% of stated steps are causally load‑bearing, while behavioral tests overestimate this by roughly 11 percentage points. The faithfulness of reasoning decreases with model size and depth of reasoning, especially for the smaller Qwen3-1.7B.