Reasoning Models Know What's Important, and Encode It in Their Activations

Reasoning traces from chain-of-thought models appear to offer a legible window into how a model arrives at its answer. A growing body of work treats them as such, using LLM judges to diagnose errors, evaluate faithfulness, and provide step-level supervision via process reward models and generative critics. These practices rely on the text of a reasoning step carrying information about its functional role. But does the text actually encode information about which reasoning steps matter? We operationalize the importance of a reasoning step as its advantage: the change in expected reward, e.g., producing the correct final answer, from including that step, estimated via Monte Carlo rollouts. Basing ground truth on these estimates, we evaluate whether LLM judges can identify high-advantage steps and find that sufficiently capable LLMs can outperform a prevalence baseline but fall well short of a noise ceiling. Fine-tuning a model as a step-level critic yields strong improvement for incorrect responses but remains distant from ceiling for correct responses, suggesting that step importance is only partially recoverable from the text of the reasoning trace. Our findings contribute to a growing body of chain-of-thought faithfulness work that cautions against treating the legibility of reasoning traces as interpretability, especially with implications for process reward modeling.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves multi-step problem solving, but long reasoning traces inflate inference cost. Token-level CoT compression reduces this cost by pruning full reasoning chains into shorter traces for model adaptation, making token selection the central challenge. Existing methods often rely on external scorers or heuristic signals only indirectly tied to the model's internal answer computation. We instead adopt a model-internal perspective: as the model forms an answer, each reasoning token leaves a ripple in the residual stream, the model's \emph{stream of thought}, and the magnitude of this ripple reflects the token's contribution to the answer computation. Building on this view, we propose \textsc{MIST} (Model-Internal Saliency for Token-level CoT compression), which defines token importance along two complementary axes: \emph{necessity}, the drop in answer likelihood when a token's internal contribution is removed, and \emph{sufficiency}, the gain in answer likelihood when that contribution alone is provided. Combining the two yields a unified importance score for pruning. Across four reasoning benchmarks and four models, \textsc{MIST} consistently outperforms baseline methods, suggesting that model-internal saliency provides an effective proxy for reasoning-token importance.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is the dominant paradigm for inference-time scaling in language models, yet the causal influence of individual steps on the final answer poorly understood. We estimate each step's causal importance via early exit and use this measure to study how answers form across the reasoning traces of several model families. Across diverse tasks, we find that reasoning typically crosses a \emph{commitment boundary} -- a sharp transition from transient intermediate guesses to a stable, high-confidence answer. This transition often happens in a single step, well before the model's reasoning block ends, and is followed by \emph{epiphenomenal} CoT steps that leave the final answer probability unaltered. Using attention probes, we show that answer-formation stages can be linearly decoded from intermediate reasoning steps with high accuracy and generalize robustly to unseen reasoning tasks. We exploit this signal to early-exit reasoning blocks at the commitment boundary, reducing the length of CoTs up to 55% on average with negligible impact on model performance.