When Does a Language Model Commit? A Finite-Answer Theory of Pre-Verbalization Commitment

Large Language Models often achieve strong performance by generating long intermediate chain-of-thought reasoning. However, it remains unclear when a model's final answer is actually determined during generation. If the answer is already fixed at an intermediate stage, subsequent reasoning tokens may constitute post-decision explanation, increasing inference cost and latency without improving correctness. We study the evolution of predicted answers over reasoning steps using forced answer completion, which elicits the model's intermediate predictions at partial reasoning prefixes. Focusing on Qwen3-4B and averaging results across all datasets considered, we find that predicted answers change in only 32% of queries. Moreover, once the final answer switch occurs, the model generates an average of 760 additional reasoning tokens per query, accounting for a substantial fraction of the total reasoning budget. Motivated by these findings, we investigate early stopping strategies that halt generation once the answer has stabilized. We show that simple heuristics, including probe-based stopping, can reduce reasoning token usage by 500 tokens per query while incurring only a 2% drop in accuracy. Together, our results indicate that a large portion of chain-of-thought generation is redundant and can be reduced with minimal impact on performance.

Language models do not simply choose an answer at the output layer. In a 9,000-trajectory MMLU study across Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, the score of the answer moves across depth in structured ways. We describe each trajectory with three quantities: the current answer margin, the next-layer change in that margin, and the distance from a decision flip. The main empirical picture is that correctness and stability are different: the largest group is unstable-correct, not stable-correct. A traced subset then asks what moves the margin. In stable-correct cases, the average attention scalar points in the correct direction, while the average MLP scalar does not; span deletion shows that removing answer-supporting text hurts the margin and removing distractor-like text helps it. The result is not a full circuit explanation. It is a reproducible way to see which answers are settled, which remain fragile, and which measured sources move them.

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.