RCCM: Diagnosing Gains and Harms in Reasoning-Prompt Transfer

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often generate extensive chain-of-thought (CoT) traces before producing a final answer. As explicit textual artifacts, these traces can be passed to other models to solve the same task, enabling cross-model reasoning transfer. Yet successful transfer alone does not reveal how the provided CoT contributes to another model's answer. We study this question with a controlled provider--receiver framework, where a provider generates a reasoning trace and a receiver solves the same problem from increasingly longer trace prefixes. We compare force-answer, where the receiver answers directly from the prefix, with free-generation, where it may continue reasoning before answering. Across models and benchmarks, full traces often transfer successfully, but prefix trajectories reveal distinct mechanisms. In force-answer mode, AIME transfer is largely driven by explicit answer availability. MMLU-Pro instead reflects a larger role for receiver competence, while ZebraLogic depends on partial structured-answer information rather than complete-answer leakage alone. In free-generation mode, partial CoTs improve performance across benchmarks, indicating that prefixes can guide continued reasoning. Finally, answer agreement among receivers provides a gold-free signal for stopping provider reasoning early. Overall, cross-model CoT transfer is not a single phenomenon: it can reflect answer extraction, reasoning scaffolding, or receiver-dependent competence.

Long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces can improve reasoning accuracy, but repeatedly generating them is costly for smaller or latency-constrained language models. This paper studies a practical alternative: produce a rich rationale once with a capable thinking model, compress it, and reuse the compressed trace as context for a cheaper answering model. We introduce CoT-X, an adaptive framework for cross-model CoT transfer. CoT-X segments reasoning traces into semantic units, scores their diagnostic and logical importance, selects budget-feasible evidence paths, and reconstructs a coherent compressed rationale for the answering model. On $7,501$ Japanese medical licensing questions spanning $10$ specialties, CoT-X improves accuracy over direct truncation by up to $40.5\%$ under the same token budget, with the largest gains at $64$--$256$ tokens. Across $64$ thinking--answering pairs from eight DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen3 models (1.5B--32B parameters), reasoning transfer is most reliable within a model family, yet remains effective across families once compression normalizes the trace. A Gaussian Process Bayesian optimization layer finds near-optimal model--budget configurations with $15$ evaluations rather than an exhaustive search over all $64$ pairs, reducing evaluation cost by $84\%$. These results show that reasoning quality, token budget, and model compatibility can be optimized jointly, making CoT-style reasoning more practical under realistic deployment constraints.

Large language models consistently fail the "car wash problem," a viral reasoning benchmark requiring implicit physical constraint inference. We present a variable isolation study (n=20 per condition, 6 conditions, 120 total trials) examining which prompt architecture layers in a production system enable correct reasoning. Using Claude 3.5 Sonnet with controlled hyperparameters (temperature 0.7, top_p 1.0), we find that the STAR (Situation-Task-Action-Result) reasoning framework alone raises accuracy from 0% to 85% (p=0.001, Fisher's exact test, odds ratio 13.22). Adding user profile context via vector database retrieval provides a further 10 percentage point gain, while RAG context contributes an additional 5 percentage points, achieving 100% accuracy in the full-stack condition. These results suggest that structured reasoning scaffolds -- specifically, forced goal articulation before inference -- matter substantially more than context injection for implicit constraint reasoning tasks.