arXiv:2603. 01437v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning.
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:2607. 29062v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model capabilities have improved in large part due to scaling chain of thought.
The paper introduces a causal, layerwise audit method called the CoT Mediation Index (CMI) to evaluate whether chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting truly influences a language model’s internal computation. By comparing performance degradation from patching CoT-token hidden states against matched control patches, the authors find that CoT influence is often confined to narrow reasoning windows and can be nearly absent even when the model produces fluent rationales. The study shows that models explicitly tuned for reasoning exhibit stronger mediation, while Mixture-of-Experts models display more distributed mediation, indicating that CoT faithfulness varies across models and tasks.
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:2608. 03550v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains the standard baseline for evaluating models' reasoning abilities.
arXiv:2606. 01462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Studies of human reasoning have shown that people are typically stronger at evaluating reasoning than producing it from scratch.
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?
The paper investigates whether latent chain-of-thought (latent CoT) models truly perform reasoning by examining twenty-one model-task configurations across different training recipes, tasks, and backbones. Using chain deletion, content replacement, probes, and trajectory analysis, the authors find that on logical tasks the latent chain often contains an answer before the chain starts and can be deleted with little effect, while on arithmetic tasks the chain’s content is essential. The study introduces a taxonomy that distinguishes what a chain represents from how a model uses it, clarifying that readable latent states alone do not prove reasoning.
The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) that allocate extra computation during inference—termed reasoning models—reduce classic decision biases compared to their non‑reasoning counterparts. Using 30 vignettes covering six cognitive biases and varying token budgets up to 8,192 tokens, the authors find that reasoning models are not less biased, and increased deliberation does not reliably diminish bias magnitude. Only anchoring showed a bias in the human direction, while other biases either remained unchanged or moved further from human patterns, suggesting that test‑time reasoning does not guarantee rationality.
arXiv:2603. 29025v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models fail when a salient surface cue conflicts with an unstated feasibility constraint.
arXiv:2607. 04572v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) tutors often produce fluent step-by-step explanations, but a correct and pedagogically formatted response does not guarantee that the answer was derived from the student-facing problem.