The paper investigates how to extract the key decision points—termed "cruxes"—that influence a language model’s recommendation. Three methods are compared: asking the model to predict its cruxes beforehand, extracting them from a single generated response, and aggregating cruxes across many responses using a reranker. Experiments show that only the many‑rollout approach reliably identifies the full set of important cruxes, making it essential for high‑stakes decisions.
arXiv:2606. 08696v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counterfactual recourse aims to provide actionable feature changes that would alter an unfavorable decision made by a predictive model.
arXiv:2604. 11996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Should we trust Large Language Models (LLMs) with high accuracy?
Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths. PRM guided search avoids this by scoring candidate continuations during generation, but requires a reward model trained with step-level labels.
arXiv:2606. 01682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) follow Occam's Razor when performing inductive and abductive reasoning. It introduces a synthetic framework for generating questions that require both types of reasoning and a new automated metric to evaluate the simplicity and correctness of generated hypotheses. Experiments show that while LLMs can handle simple scenarios, they struggle with complex world models and producing high‑quality, simplest hypotheses, even when using advanced reasoning techniques.
arXiv:2610.14007v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A familiar line of reasoning runs as follows: language models are flexible approximators trained under a strictly proper loss, so scale brings them c...
arXiv:2607. 17948v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent-based models (ABMs) rely on simple, explicit and reproducible rules for individual decision making, while complex collective behavior emerges from interactions among agents.
arXiv:2607. 17082v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model agents solve tasks by generating trajectories that interleave planning, tool calls, and intermediate results.
arXiv:2607. 16232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of statistical learning algorithms to infer human preferences from high-dimensional choice data runs up against a fundamental challenge: choice alternatives typically differ in many ways simultaneously, so it is generally unclear which factors actually drove an observed decision and should be credited as preferences.
The paper investigates whether the text of chain‑of‑thought reasoning steps actually reflects their true importance for a model’s final answer. By defining step importance as the advantage in expected reward when a step is included, the authors use Monte Carlo rollouts to estimate ground truth and then test whether large language model judges can identify high‑advantage steps. They find that capable LLMs can beat a prevalence baseline but still fall far short of a noise ceiling, and that fine‑tuning a step‑level critic improves detection for incorrect responses but remains distant from the ceiling for correct ones, indicating that step importance is only partially recoverable from the reasoning trace text.
arXiv:2601. 21522v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The performance of large language models (LLMs) on verifiable tasks is usually measured by pass@k, the probability of answering a question correctly at least once in k trials.
arXiv:2607. 09706v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models turn a worded situation into a numeric plan, and the dominant pipelines (NL4Opt, OptiMUS, ORLM, OR-LLM-Agent) commit to a single objective and point-valued coefficients, then solve once.