LLM Reasoning

LLM: Large Language Model

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

68 papers in the last four weeks, up 143% on the four weeks before. 0.7% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 650

Aug 13, 2025cs.LG

Beyond Scaling Law: A Data-Efficient Distillation Framework for Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable reasoning capabilities in tasks such as algorithmic coding and mathematical problem-solving. Recent methods have improved reasoning through expanded corpus and multistage training combining reinforcement learning and supervised fine-tuning. Although some methods suggest that small but targeted dataset can incentivize reasoning via only distillation, a reasoning scaling laws is still taking shape, increasing computational costs. To address this, we propose a data-efficient distillation framework (DED) that optimizes the Pareto frontier of reasoning distillation. Inspired by the on-policy learning and diverse roll-out strategies of reinforcement learning, the key idea of our approach is threefold: (1) We identify that benchmark scores alone do not determine an effective teacher model. Through comprehensive comparisons of leading reasoning LLMs, we develop a method to select an optimal teacher model. (2) While scaling distillation can enhance reasoning, it often degrades out-of-domain performance. A carefully curated, smaller corpus achieves a balanced trade-off between in-domain and out-of-domain capabilities. (3) Diverse reasoning trajectories encourage the student model to develop robust reasoning skills. We validate our method through evaluations on mathematical reasoning (AIME 2024/2025, MATH-500) and code generation (LiveCodeBench), achieving state-of-the-art results with only 0.8k carefully curated examples, bypassing the need for extensive scaling. Our systematic analysis demonstrates that DED outperforms existing methods by considering factors beyond superficial hardness, token length, or teacher model capability. This work offers a practical and efficient pathway to advanced reasoning while preserving general capabilities.

Xiaojun Wu, Xiaoguang Jiang, Huiyang Li +11

1Zhongxing Telecom Equipment(ZTE), China · 2China Mobile Communications Group Co Ltd

CoT Distillation Language Model Distillation Algorithmic Reasoning LLM Reasoning Data-Efficient Learning

Aug 7, 2025cs.CL

FedCoT: Communication-Efficient Federated Reasoning Enhancement for Large Language Models

Enhancing LLM reasoning in federated settings is nontrivial due to stringent computational, communication, and privacy constraints, especially in healthcare, where clinically consequential decisions require not only accuracy but also interpretable, auditable rationales to meet safety, accountability, and regulatory requirements. Conventional federated fine-tuning largely imitates final answers rather than cultivating step-by-step reasoning, often relying on privacy-sensitive centralized distillation and still incurring substantial communication overhead. We address this gap with \textbf{\ours{}}, a federated reasoning framework that combines lightweight chain-of-thought resampling with a compact discriminator for selection, and client-aware LoRA stacking with weighted classifier aggregation to accommodate heterogeneity while reducing aggregation noise and communication; clients generate candidate chains and supervision locally, and only lightweight modules are aggregated on the server. Experiments on medical reasoning benchmarks show consistent gains under tight resource budgets while keeping data local and respecting privacy, offering an interpretable and resource-efficient solution. Our code is made publicly available at https://github.com/DIaacKr/FedCoT

Chuan Li, Qianyi Zhao, Fengran Mo +1

East China Normal University, China · University of Montreal, Canada

Communication-Efficient Distributed Training Medical LLMs LLM Reasoning Federated Learning

Aug 6, 2025cs.AI

From "Aha Moments" to Controllable Thinking: Toward Meta-Cognitive Reasoning in Large Reasoning Models via Decoupled Reasoning and Control

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) can exhibit step-by-step reasoning, reflection, and backtracking, but these behaviors are often unregulated, leading to overthinking. As a result, LRMs continue generating redundant reasoning even after reaching high-confidence conclusions. This increases inference cost and latency, limiting practical deployment. The root cause is the absence of an intrinsic mechanism to monitor the reasoning state and decide when to continue, backtrack, or stop. We propose MERA, a meta-cognitive reasoning framework that decouples reasoning from control to enable independent optimization of control strategies. MERA constructs high-quality reasoning-control supervision data via a takeover-based pipeline, and transforms long-horizon traces into structured reasoning-control alternating sequences for training. The model is trained with supervised fine-tuning to internalize the structured separation, and further optimized with Control-Segment Policy Optimization (CSPO), which combines segment-wise GRPO with control masking to focus learning on control segments. Experiments across reasoning benchmarks show that MERA improves both efficiency and accuracy.

Rui Ha, Rui Pu, Chaozhuo Li +2

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China · 2Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China

RL for Language Model Reasoning LLM Inference Acceleration LLM Reasoning Large Reasoning Models

Jul 20, 2025cs.MA

Knowing When to Critique: Task-Adaptive Metacognitive Regulation for Reliable LLM Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) reason fluently but do not regulate their reasoning: they apply uniform scrutiny to every input, which leaves them vulnerable to adversarial and counterfactual prompts, while indiscriminate critique over-corrects answers that were already sound. We propose MetaCrit, a multi-agent framework grounded in Nelson and Narens' metacognitive regulation theory that calibrates how much critique each task receives. MetaCrit separates regulation into four agents: an object-level generator, a monitoring agent that assesses response validity, a control agent that critiques logical soundness, and a meta-level synthesizer that reconciles their signals into a regulated response. Adaptivity here is input-conditioned intervention strength within a fixed pipeline: all four agents run on every input and what varies is the direction and magnitude of the correction they produce, not which stages execute. Across reasoning, safety, and bias benchmarks, MetaCrit improves truthfulness and logical soundness and reaches zero toxicity on BOLD and HONEST without a reasoning trade-off, whereas the same critique applied indiscriminately degrades performance. The cost is four calls per query, about one sixth of the cost of a dedicated reasoning model of similar accuracy. A writing study shows that MetaCrit is preferred for critical-thinking support, and its agents transfer to existing frameworks without architectural change. Code is available at https://github.com/Paparare/EduThink4AI.

Xinmeng Hou, Ziting Chang, Zhouquan Lu +5

Nanyang Technological University · Unicorn Verse · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +3

LLM Self-Correction Multi-Agent LLMs Metacognition in Language Models LLM Reasoning

Jun 23, 2025cs.CL

Adaptive Activation Steering for Efficient LLM Reasoning via Closed-Loop PID Control

Reasoning LLMs trained with long chain-of-thought often overthink: they spend tokens on redundant reflection and transitions that inflate cost without improving accuracy. Static activation steering (e.g.\ SEAL) suppresses such content with a fixed vector, but applies the same strength regardless of how redundant the current chunk actually is. We describe PID-steering, a training-free, decoding-time method that modulates the steering strength with a PID controller driven by a lightweight chunk-level redundancy classifier. On a subset of GSM8K with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, the method improves accuracy from 85.7% to 89.6% (+3.9 pp) while cutting average output length from 1026 to 790 tokens (

-

23%). We report it as a small-scale proof of concept rather than a benchmark result.

Aryasomayajula Ram Bharadwaj

Independent Researcher

Language Model Steering Efficient Language Model Inference Activation Steering LLM Reasoning

Jun 16, 2025cs.SE

Code Reasoning for Software Engineering Tasks: A Survey and A Call to Action

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led to dramatic improvements across a wide range of natural language tasks. Their performance on certain tasks can be further enhanced by incorporating test-time reasoning techniques. These inference-time advances have been adopted into the code domain, enabling complex software engineering (SWE) tasks such as code generation, test generation and issue resolution. However, the impact of different reasoning techniques on code-centric SWE tasks has not been systematically explored. In this work, we survey code reasoning techniques that underpin these capabilities, with a focus on test-time compute and inference-time reasoning paradigms. We examine a variety of code-specific reasoning methods and progressively build up to SWE agents, which combine planning, tool use, and multi-step interaction. We also compare the impact of different techniques on coding tasks, highlighting their relative importance and outlining open challenges and future research directions. Across commonly used models and benchmarks, we find that approaches exploiting code-specific signals (e.g., structure and execution feedback) are frequently associated with improved performance, motivating a dedicated study of code reasoning beyond natural-language reasoning.

Saurabh Pujar, Ira Ceka, Irene Manotas +3

IBM · Columbia University

Software Engineering Agents Execution-Guided Code Generation Agentic Code Generation LLM Reasoning

Jun 16, 2025cs.CL

BOW: Training Language Models to Reason Over Plausible Next Words

Next-word prediction (NWP) trains language models against a single observed continuation, even though many contexts admit multiple plausible next words. Recent RL-based next-word reasoning methods make this tension explicit: they reward a model for producing a rationale that supports one context-conditioned continuation, which can turn a pre-existing preference into a confident, self-justifying trajectory. We introduce BOW, an RL framework that instead trains models to produce self-contained, neutral, and comprehensive descriptions of the plausible next-word space. The policy generates a next-word reasoning trajectory from the full context, but a frozen scorer computes the core reward from that trajectory alone, without separately receiving the context. BOW-Reg adds a lightweight breadth regularizer to this core reward to discourage premature collapse. On two model backbones, BOW remains competitive with the original models and often outperforms trained baselines across ten general reasoning benchmarks. On benchmarks testing ambiguous references and word meanings, BOW-Reg achieves the highest SharedRef correctness and the lowest HoWN-Simple single-sense collapse on both backbones. Human evaluation further shows that BOW-Reg produces broader next-word reasoning trajectories, while direct next-word-prediction evaluation shows that these trajectories remain predictive.

Ming Shen, Zhikun Xu, Jacob Dineen +2

Arizona State University

RL for Language Model Reasoning Next-Token Prediction Language Model Post-Training Text Generation LLM Reasoning

May 29, 2025cs.CL

SocialMaze: A Benchmark for Evaluating and Enhancing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models in Complex Social Environments

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially grounded applications, where success requires interpreting context, inferring others' mental states, and reasoning about unreliable information. Yet existing benchmarks rarely evaluate these demands jointly in complex, evolving settings. We introduce SocialMaze, a benchmark that organizes six tasks across social deduction games, daily-life interactions, and digital community platforms along three descriptive design axes: deep reasoning, dynamic interaction, and information uncertainty. These axes characterize intended sources of task difficulty rather than latent, factor-analytic dimensions of model capability. Automated checks and human validation support data quality. Evaluations of twelve proprietary and open-weight LLMs show substantial variation in the use of evolving interaction histories; stronger chain-of-thought reasoners perform better on tasks requiring deeper inference, while uncertainty consistently degrades performance. Reasoning workflows help weaker short-chain-of-thought backbones but saturate on stronger reasoners. Finally, targeted fine-tuning on curated reasoning traces substantially improves structured social-reasoning tasks, whereas transfer to language-aggregation tasks remains statistically inconclusive. The project homepage is available at https://xzx34.github.io/socialmaze/.

Zixiang Xu, Yanbo Wang, Yue Huang +13

Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · University of Southern California · University of Notre Dame +3

LLM Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Social Reasoning LLM Reasoning

May 29, 2025cs.CL

PBEBench: A Multi-Step Programming by Examples Reasoning Benchmark inspired by Historical Linguistics

Although many benchmarks evaluate the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domains such as mathematics, coding, or data wrangling, few abstract away from domain specifics to examine reasoning as a capability in and of itself. We contribute a novel type of benchmark evaluating the inductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs that is inspired by the forward reconstruction task from historical linguistics but is formulated in an extremely simple, general way (in the form of Programming by Examples). The task involves generating a cascade of simple string rewrite programs to transform a given list of input strings into a list of desired output strings. We present a fully automated pipeline that programmatically generates problems of this type with controllable difficulty, enabling scalable evaluation of reasoning models while avoiding contamination. Using this approach, we construct two benchmarks: PBEBench-Lite, which efficiently stratifies models of varying capabilities, and PBEBench, which requires models to induce programs similar in complexity to those constructed by historical linguists. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between models that leverage test-time compute or LCoT (long chain-of-thought) reasoning and those that do not. Moreover, although recent models show promise, the solve rate for both of them drops below 5% for hard instances of the PBEBench dataset (ground truth cascade lengths of 20 and 30, respectively), falling well short of realistic historical linguistics requirements even with computationally expensive, popular scaling techniques from the PBE and reasoning literature. Additionally, we also study the effectiveness of different scaling strategies and the impact of various hyperparameters on the difficulty of the generated data using gpt-oss-120b, the best-performing open-source model.

Atharva Naik, Prakam, Yash Mathur +6

Carnegie Mellon University · Independent Researcher · Ohio State University

Logical Reasoning LLM Evaluation Program Synthesis Synthetic Benchmark Generation LLM Reasoning

May 28, 2025cs.CL

Learning Composable Chains-of-Thought

A common approach for teaching large language models (LLMs) to reason is to train on chain-of-thought (CoT) traces of in-distribution reasoning problems, but such annotated data is costly to obtain for every problem of interest. We want reasoning models to generalize beyond their training distribution, and ideally to generalize compositionally: combine atomic reasoning skills to solve harder, unseen reasoning tasks. We take a step towards compositional generalization of reasoning skills when addressing a target compositional task that has no labeled CoT data. We find that simply training models on CoT data of atomic tasks leads to limited generalization, but minimally modifying CoT formats of constituent atomic tasks to be composable can lead to improvements. We can train "atomic CoT" models on the atomic tasks with Composable CoT data and combine them with multitask learning or model merging for better zero-shot performance on the target compositional task. Such a combined model can be further bootstrapped on a small amount of compositional data using rejection sampling fine-tuning (RFT). Results on string operations and natural language skill compositions show that training LLMs on Composable CoT outperforms multitask learning and continued fine-tuning baselines within a given training data budget.

Fangcong Yin, Zeyu Leo Liu, Liu Leqi +2

The University of Texas at Austin · Princeton University

LLM Fine-Tuning CoT Reasoning LLM Training Compositional Generalization LLM Reasoning

May 22, 2025cs.CL

Reasoning Beyond Language: A Comprehensive Survey on Latent Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on complex tasks through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, conventional CoT relies on explicitly verbalized intermediate steps, which constrains its broader applicability, particularly in abstract reasoning tasks beyond language. To address this, there has been growing research interest in \textit{latent CoT reasoning}, where the reasoning process is embedded within latent spaces. By decoupling reasoning from explicit language generation, latent CoT offers the promise of richer cognitive representations and facilitates more flexible, faster inference. This paper aims to present a comprehensive overview of this emerging paradigm and establish a systematic taxonomy. We analyze recent advances in methods, categorizing them from token-wise horizontal approaches to layer-wise vertical strategies. We then provide in-depth discussions of these methods, highlighting their design principles, applications, and remaining challenges. We hope that our survey provides a structured foundation for advancing this promising direction in LLM reasoning. The relevant papers will be regularly updated at https://github.com/EIT-NLP/Awesome-Latent-CoT.

Xinghao Chen, Anhao Zhao, Heming Xia +7

Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Ningbo Digital Twin Institute, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo, China

CoT Reasoning LLM Reasoning Latent CoT Reasoning

May 21, 2025cs.AI

When Can Large Reasoning Models Save Thinking? Mechanistic Analysis of Behavioral Divergence in Reasoning

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable success on complex tasks, yet their tendency to "overthink" leads to inefficiencies. Although "save-thinking" prompts are intended to mitigate this issue, we find that LRMs still frequently enter the "Still-thinking" mode instead of the expected "No-thinking" mode, especially on difficult queries. To analyze this behavioral divergence, we examine LRMs from three perspectives: confidence at the thinking-termination boundary, divergence in internal attention distributions, and attention allocation across prompt segments. We find that high perplexity is associated with later Still-thinking behavior, and that Still-thinking cases allocate more attention to the original question. Based on these observations, we propose an attention intervention method to regulate this behavior. While this intervention suppresses explicit thinking, it also causes a drop in accuracy, suggesting that the suppressed reasoning behavior is often useful for correctness. Our work provides confidence- and attention-level evidence for this behavior, highlighting the trade-off between instruction following, inference efficiency, and reasoning correctness.

Rongzhi Zhu, Yi Liu, Jiancheng Wang +6

State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · China Unicom Software Research Institute, China · National Institute of Healthcare Data Science, Nanjing University, China +1

Overthinking in Language Models LLM Interpretability Efficient Language Model Reasoning Causal Interventions in Language Models LLM Reasoning Large Reasoning Models

Mar 31, 2025cs.CL

Harnessing the Reasoning Economy: A Survey of Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their ability to perform complex reasoning tasks, transitioning from fast and intuitive thinking (System 1) to slow and deep reasoning (System 2). While System 2 reasoning improves task accuracy, it often incurs substantial computational costs due to its slow thinking nature and inefficient or unnecessary reasoning behaviors. In contrast, System 1 reasoning is computationally efficient but leads to suboptimal performance. Consequently, it is critical to balance the trade-off between performance (benefits) and computational costs (budgets), giving rise to the concept of reasoning economy. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive analysis of reasoning economy in both the post-training and test-time inference stages of LLMs, encompassing i) the cause of reasoning inefficiency, ii) behavior analysis of different reasoning patterns, and iii) potential solutions to achieve reasoning economy. By offering actionable insights and highlighting open challenges, we aim to shed light on strategies for improving the reasoning economy of LLMs, thereby serving as a valuable resource for advancing research in this evolving area. We also provide a public repository to continually track developments in this fast-evolving field.

Rui Wang, Hongru Wang, Boyang Xue +9

University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK · University of Macau, Macau SAR, China · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, USA

LLM Inference Efficiency Cost-Aware Inference LLM Reasoning

Feb 13, 2025cs.CL

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

Lujain Ibrahim, Myra Cheng

University of Oxford · Stanford University

Anthropomorphism in AI LLM Reasoning

Jan 16, 2025cs.CL

Foundations of Large Language Models

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

Tong Xiao, Jingbo Zhu

NLP Lab, Northeastern University & NiuTrans Research

Language Model Pretraining LLM Alignment LLM Inference LLM Prompting LLM Reasoning

Oct 31, 2024cs.AI

RL-STaR: Theoretical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning Frameworks for Self-Taught Reasoner

The reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) have improved with chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, allowing models to solve complex tasks stepwise. However, training CoT capabilities requires detailed reasoning data, which is often scarce. The self-taught reasoner (STaR) framework addresses this by using reinforcement learning to automatically generate reasoning steps, reducing reliance on human-labeled data. Although STaR and its variants have demonstrated empirical success, a theoretical foundation explaining these improvements is lacking. This work provides a theoretical framework for understanding the effectiveness of reinforcement learning on CoT reasoning and STaR. Our contributions are: (1) criteria for the quality of pre-trained models necessary to initiate effective reasoning improvement; (2) an analysis of policy improvement, showing why LLM reasoning improves iteratively with STaR; (3) conditions for convergence to an optimal reasoning policy; and (4) an examination of STaR's robustness, explaining how it can improve reasoning even when incorporating occasional incorrect steps. We also run RL-STaR on GPT-2, Qwen2.5-0.5B and Phi-3-mini, and the measured return curves follow the ones the analysis predicts. This framework bridges empirical findings with theoretical insights, advancing reinforcement learning approaches for reasoning in LLMs.

Fu-Chieh Chang, Yu-Ting Lee, Hui-Ying Shih +2

MediaTek Research, Taipei, Taiwan · Graduate Institute of Communication Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan · Department of Mathematical Sciences, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan +2

Reinforcement Learning RL for Language Model Reasoning Language Model Self-Improvement LLM Reasoning

Sep 9, 2024cs.AI

IFAR: Multi-Perspective and Multi-Level Causal Discovery with LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly, and their reasoning capabilities have become a hot research topic. However, there is still limited exploration of abductive reasoning. The multi-perspective and multi-level of causes is one of the core challenges of abductive reasoning, which cannot be solved well by existing methods. We construct a specialized dataset named DeepAbduction, which is designed for tracing the causes of pollution and disease, addressing the lack of datasets in this field. We propose \textsc{Inverse-Forward Abductive Reasoning} (IFAR) framework for LLMs multi-perspective and multi-level abductive reasoning. IFAR is zero-shot and combines generalized backward reasoning with relation-by-relation forward verification. Experimental results show that IFAR achieves an improvement of approximately 40% in the F1 score compared to other methods under mainstream LLMs, while maintaining a balance between recall and precision. Furthermore, IFAR enhances the performance of non-reasoning LLMs to surpass LLMs which have been trained for reasoning, and remains effective when applied to the latter. Code will be released after the acceptance of our work.

Jinwei He, Feng Lu

Beihang University, Beijing, China

Abductive Reasoning Causal Structure Learning LLM Reasoning

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

Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University · CSAIL Massachusetts Institute of Technology

LLM Prompting LLM Reasoning

Date pendingcs.CL

ReasoningFlow: Discourse Structures for Understanding LLM Reasoning Traces

Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process. We introduce ReasoningFlow, a framework that captures the discourse structures of LRM reasoning traces into fine-grained directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We develop and validate our annotation schema through careful manual annotation of 31 traces (2.1k steps), achieving high inter-annotator agreement, then scale to automatic annotation of 1,260 traces (247.7k steps) spanning three tasks (math, science, argumentation) and five models (Qwen2.5-32B-Inst, QwQ-32B, DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, GPT-oss-120B). By analyzing ReasoningFlow graphs, we find: (1) LRMs exhibit structurally similar traces, despite being trained from different base models and potentially non-overlapping post-training data. (2) ReasoningFlow reveals diverse fine-grained reasoning behaviors (e.g., local verification, self-reflection, and assumptions) that can be used for better reasoning trace monitorability. (3) In LRMs, most of the erroneous steps are not used to derive final answers. (4) Mechanistic causal dependencies between steps do not reflect the language-level discourse structure. We release the dataset and code in: https://github.com/jinulee-v/reasoningflow.

Jinu Lee, Shivam Agarwal, Amruta Parulekar +3

The Grainger College of Engineering University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

LLM Reasoning with Graphs LLM Auditing LLM Interpretability Structured Reasoning LLM Reasoning Large Reasoning Models+1

Date pendingcs.AI

Some hypotheses on how chatbots work in problem-solution-driven conversations: Large Language Models as confirmation of the Innovation Illusion

We discuss the nature of chatbots as conversation partners in problem-solving conversations. What can chatbots do and what can't they do? Our analysis draws on insights from Aggregation Dynamics, Cognitive Linguistics, Neuropsychology and Psychology. We establish that chatbots are multifaceted and composite systems. Our argument focuses on basic chatbots in the hope of thereby making statements about the core functionality of more advanced chatbots. Basic chatbots are assumed to consist of a Large Language Model (LLM) with a simple interface. The main results of our analysis are: a description of human imagination, understanding and thinking based on so-called metaphorical problem propagations; that the texts in text datasets used for training LLMs have specific characteristics and that these texts only partially imitate human thinking and understanding; that the LLM training process encodes artificial metaphorical problem propagations into an LLM from these text datasets. Our conclusions are that a basic chatbot cannot be a thinking partner capable of matching the cognitive flexibility of humans, and that further development of LLMs will not lead to this either. But chatbots exist, they are being used on a massive scale, by both individuals and organisations. It is therefore socially and politically important to understand them. Our article aims to contribute to the discussion on the functioning, benefits and drawbacks of chatbots. Cognitive Linguistics shows how the use of metaphor is an expression of our thinking. Aggregation Dynamics, is an attempt at a comprehensive systems theory. We believe that the concept of metaphorical problem propagation could provide an interesting addition for both. Chatbots a solution? For what?

S. F. M. van Vlijmen, H. D. Lethe jr

Cognitive Modeling Conversational Agents LLM Reasoning