arXiv AI By Shaoang Li, Yanhang Shi, Jian Li

When Reasoning Traces Conflict with Evidence: How Answer Configuration Shapes Evidence Following

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study investigates how a retained reasoning trace influences answer accuracy and its interaction with evidence. By comparing two answer configurations—continuation of the model’s own thinking versus a separate answer call—across GPT‑OSS, Gemma4, and Qwen3 on HotpotQA and MuSiQue, the authors find that the separate call significantly improves evidence‑following while the trace itself remains crucial for accuracy. The analysis also reveals that the final line of a trace is most valuable, that gold evidence aids early reasoning, and that distractors weaken correction under a separate call.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 30

REALHOP: Rethinking Multi-Hop Reasoning Evaluation via Behavioral Auditing

REALHOP introduces a behavioral auditing framework to assess multi‑hop reasoning by measuring the Behavioral Necessity Rate (BNR), which quantifies how often removing targeted evidence prevents correct answers. Across five benchmarks, the framework reveals a wide gap between annotated reasoning chains and actual evidence dependence, with panel‑mean BNR ranging from 16.6% to 48.9%. By re‑binding entities, factorizing relations, adding competing paths, and placing evidence at traceable locations, REALHOP raises BNR dramatically—from 27.4% to 94.4% on MuSiQue questions—while maintaining high overall accuracy and improving performance on long‑context tasks.

By Jiawen Tao, Xiaokun Yuan, Yaoming Li, Chenxu Liu, Mengzhou Wu, Tong Yang, Maxm Pan
arXiv AI
Sep 2

The Answer Is Not the Argument

The paper investigates whether giving AI monitors access to the final answer improves their ability to verify reasoning. Using 237 step‑by‑step solutions to physics exam questions, the authors found that answer access mainly helps monitors detect inconsistencies with the final answer rather than independently checking the reasoning. Certification of the answer increased overall accuracy and error localization but reduced the ability to flag critical traces where the answer was correct but the reasoning was flawed.

By Will Yeadon, Sergio Ju\'arez, Paul Mackay, T. J. Dowling, Elise Agra, Oto-obong Inyang, Arin Mizouri, Craig P. Testrow
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 22

TraceForge: Distilling with Your Own Thinking

TraceForge introduces a two‑stage training method that generates reasoning traces in the style of a target model family, using supervised learning followed by adversarial refinement. The system produces traces that are judged as authentic with scores comparable to real traces, and when applied to teacher answers, it improves performance on coding benchmarks such as HumanEval+ and MBPP+. The approach addresses the limitation of existing models that only return answers without detailed reasoning, enabling more transparent and learnable outputs.

By Yan Wang
arXiv AI
Oct 16

Does Latent Chain-of-Thought Actually Reason? A Single, Unifying Taxonomy for Latent Reasoning

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.

By Jingjie Qiu, Sheldon Yu, Xunyi Jiang, Jiajin Liu, Zihan Huang, Zhendong Chu, Tong Yu, Julian McAuley, Junda Wu