cs.SEAug 1, 2026

Distilling Reasoning Traces into Advisory Prompts for Software Engineering Tasks

Authors: Faizan Faisal, Prem Devanbu, Toufique Ahmed

Organizations: University of California, Davis · IBM

Abstract

Language models are widely used for generating and otherwise processing code (e.g., identifying code hallucinations, possible inputs, or predicting outputs); however, LLMs can make mistakes, which can be serious. One key issue is that models are trained on (still) largely human-written, and thus imperfect, code; it's not easy to find sufficiently large code corpora that are entirely free of bugs. Thus, other inference-time ways of reducing LLM errors, without additional training, are desirable. "Reasoning" or "thinking" modes, exposed as a togglable feature by hybrid reasoning models, do reduce errors; however, reasoning consumes additional resources. This paper asks if better performance can be achieved without always incurring the cost of reasoning. Human students of programming learn to avoid mistakes by (a) identifying them, (b) reflecting upon the cognitive lapses that led to them (essentially, "thinking through" the errors), (c) inferring general rules or lessons from these reflections, and (d) internalizing these lessons into rules. In tutorial sessions with an instructor, this is a common Socratic interaction. Examples of such internalizable rules might include the nugget "Before coding, restate the requirements to clarify them." Inspired by this process, this paper describes an approach where we first identify examples in which "thinking mode" in a (low-resource) LLM avoids errors. These errors, and their avoidance via "thinking" in the same LLM, are then examined by a bigger LLM to generate summary explanations; these are then summarized by a large LLM into brief advisory prompts. This approach works on many modest-sized models; in some cases, the "advisory prompts" thus learned can also be gainfully transferred to other models. We also present investigations into the nature of coding errors that language models make, and a characterization of when this approach can be helpful.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 18, 2026cs.AI

Playing Psychic: Using Thought Trees to Predict Reasoning Models Accuracy on Coding Tasks

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown that test-time scaling can substantially improve model performance on complex tasks, particularly in the coding domain. Under this paradigm, models use a larger token budget during inference to generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing a final answer. However, current evaluations primarily rely on competitive programming benchmarks, which may not capture the full range of reasoning abilities. In this work, we perform a systematic study of frontier reasoning models to understand their performance on real-world coding benchmarks. To gain more insights into the performance of such models, we devise a programmatic way to {\em automatically generate} coding tasks of arbitrary difficulty and structure from existing benchmarks. Using this framework, our analysis reveals that the structure of a reasoning trace, not just its contents, is a strong predictor of correctness. Motivated by this, we propose structured thought-trees as means to represent reasoning traces. To illustrate their use, we train a lightweight classifier on features extracted from thought-trees to predict trace correctness, and demonstrate that flagging and retrying structurally anomalous traces based on the extracted features yields consistent gains at lower complexity levels.
Jiaxin Fang, Runyuan He, Sahil Bhatia +2
Reasoning TracesLarge Reasoning ModelsTree-Of-ThoughtsFrontier Models
AskPDF
May 28, 2026cs.SE

Inferring Code Correctness from Specification

Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale. However, validating the correctness of LLM-generated code remains a critical and largely unsolved challenge. Existing approaches either rely on dynamic consensus across multiple code candidates - making them costly and difficult to scale - or on static reasoning that is susceptible to dynamic bugs and order bias. In this paper, we propose TRAILS~ (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs. TRAILS~ first generates diverse test inputs via category partitioning based on the specification, then executes them against the candidate code and prompts LLMs to assess whether the resulting input-output pairs conform to the specification - without ever reasoning over the code itself. Scores are aggregated across inputs, to determines whether the program is likely correct. We evaluate TRAILS~ on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline. TRAILS~ improves Matthew Correlation Coefficient by up to 39% relative to Zero-Shot COT and consistently outperforms HoarePrompt. Beyond accuracy, TRAILS~ demonstrates greater stability across seeded runs, reducing sensitivity to LLM non-determinism, and assigns correct labels to a larger set of unique code samples than competing approaches.
Tambon Florian, Papadakis Mike
AI Code GenerationCorrectnessSpecificationChain-Of-Thought
AskPDF
Apr 3, 2024cs.CL

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.
Emmy Liu, Graham Neubig, Jacob Andreas
LLM Reasoning Methods
AskPDF