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.
By Daeyeop Lee, Hwanjo Yu
arXiv:2602. 20094v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) witness increasing deployment in complex, high-stakes decision-making scenarios, it becomes imperative to ground their reasoning in causality rather than spurious correlations.
By Yuzhe Wang, Yaochen Zhu, Jundong Li
arXiv:2606. 11211v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The ability of large language models (LLMs) to express calibrated uncertainty is important for safe deployment.
By Prakul Sunil Hiremath, Harshit R. Hiremath
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.
By Shashwat Sourav, Aishwarya Balwani
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.
By Kevin Du, Alexander Hoyle, Laura Ruis, Acyr Locatelli
The paper introduces ICE (Intervention-Consistent Explanation), a framework that evaluates the faithfulness of large language model explanations by comparing them to random baselines of equal size across multiple intervention operators. It demonstrates that faithfulness varies with the chosen operator, with significant differences observed when switching between deletion and retrieval infill operators. The study evaluates seven LLMs on four tasks, revealing that operator changes can cross the positive-evidence threshold in 18% of configurations and that random baselines uncover anti-faithfulness in nearly a third of English deletion setups, findings that also hold across six non‑English languages and two attribution methods.
By Abhinaba Basu, Pavan Chakraborty