Reasoning Trace Analysis

Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning. We propose verifier-coupled reasoning, a framework that inserts inline claims into reasoning traces and trains an auxiliary consistency head to predict programmatic verifier outputs from rationale-span hidden states. The central finding is a gap between decodability and faithfulness: consistency training reliably makes verifier information decodable from rationale representations, but decodability does not guarantee faithful generation. In LeanCheck (formal theorem proving), rationale-only and proof-only pooling achieve perfect directional separation under counterfactual conflict. In KataGo (Go engine), commentary spans encode 10-way win-rate buckets at 81% accuracy. Yet in a code setting, the model achieves 98.6% coupling while its generated explanations remain unfaithful: fluent prose with correct structured claims, but describing unrelated algorithms; a controlled pretrained-vs-from-scratch comparison shows the gap is not capacity-driven. Synthetic activation patching confirms causal influence (73-89% vs. 31% baseline), FEVER reveals that evidence-only pooling isolates genuine evidence sensitivity at the cost of raw accuracy, and per-claim analysis shows that consistency loss disproportionately benefits fine-grained claims over binary ones. These results establish that consistency losses are effective diagnostics and representation-shaping tools, but not sufficient conditions for faithful reasoning.

Standard accuracy metrics cannot explain why LLMs handle variable tracking but fail on semantically equivalent loops. We study an internal lifecycle of code reasoning in which models first brew the answer, making it linearly recoverable many layers before it becomes self-decodable, and then diverge into one of four resolution outcomes: Resolved, Overprocessed, Misresolved, or Unresolved. Understanding this lifecycle matters because similar task accuracies can mask fundamentally different failure modes that surface-level evaluation cannot detect. We introduce a dual diagnostic framework pairing layer-wise linear probing with Context-Stripped Decoding (CSD) and apply it to six code-reasoning task families across 16 models spanning Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek architectures. All four outcomes carry substantial mass in every task family: overall Resolved is only 41.5%, with multiple tasks below 30%. Controlled sweeps over structure, depth, and operators expose task-specific failure bottlenecks: Function Call Resolved plunges from 61.1% to 2.5% as call depth increases from one to three. Across architectures and scales, the brewing scaffold remains stable, with normalized brewing duration 24-42% across all 16 models, while resolution success varies with capability. This indicates that the scaffold is a stable empirical regularity across the tested decoder-only Transformer families, whereas resolution success covaries with capability, scale, and training. Code: https://github.com/euyis1019/llm-brewing

Many reasoning tasks require models to reason over input context, from document-grounded question answering to rule-based deduction. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting produces traces that appear transparent, yet individual steps can silently deviate from the source evidence, even when the final answer is correct. Existing methods detect hallucinations at the response level but fail to identify where in the chain a failure occurs or what type it is. We introduce GRACE, the first human-annotated step-level faithfulness benchmark with a data-driven error taxonomy for context-grounded textual reasoning. GRACE covers CoT traces from 10 models across 4 source datasets, with each step annotated for faithfulness, error category, and natural language explanation. A data-driven taxonomy, discovered bottom-up via unsupervised clustering, organizes failures into two tracks: GRACE-Inference (deductive errors) and GRACE-Grounding (factual grounding errors), with four categories each. The evaluation set is human-annotated and challenging by design. Our experiments reveal substantial headroom for current models. In addition, integrating step-level faithfulness signals into reinforcement learning pipelines improves both downstream accuracy and reasoning reliability.

Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input. In such settings, two responses can receive the same final-answer score while differing in whether the trace explicitly flags injected biasing content. Accuracy-only evaluation collapses these cases. We study this gap as a measurement blind spot for responsible evaluation and introduce a minimal trace-level diagnostic with two axes: \emph{susceptibility} (whether the bias breaks a previously correct answer) and \emph{acknowledgment} (whether the trace contains a rubric-defined surface reference to the injected content). Across thousands of biased GSM8K trials, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet~4 have similar susceptibility rates ($1.3\%$ vs. $1.2\%$) but substantially different acknowledgment rates ($13.0\%$ vs. $75.0\%$) under the same rubric.

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 remains poorly understood. In this work, we use answer logits at the end of each reasoning step to estimate each step's causal importance to the final answer and intermediate guesses, shedding light on the answer formation process of several reasoning model families. Across diverse tasks, we find that reasoning typically crosses a 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 epiphenomenal CoT steps that leave the final answer probability unaltered. Using attention probes, we show that answer-formation stages can be linearly decoded from the activations of intermediate reasoning steps with high accuracy, showing robust generalization to unseen reasoning tasks. We leverage this property for early-exiting reasoning blocks at the commitment boundary location, reducing the length of CoTs up to 55% with negligible impact on model performance.

Parallel test-time scaling samples many reasoning traces and majority-votes their answers, improving LLM accuracy but requiring traces to run to completion, incurring substantial computational overhead. We observe that probing partial traces at intermediate checkpoints can extract current answers without disrupting generation, revealing an evolving aggregate vote. Based on this observation, we introduce MARS, a margin-adversarial stopping rule that estimates which active traces are likely to change their answers and stops once the leader remains safe under a conservative bound on future vote movement. The rule separates two sources of uncertainty. It learns the trace-level switch probabilities that determine how much of the current margin is likely to be retained, while handling the harder question of where switching traces land through an adversarial bound calibrated from warmup traces. With true switch probabilities, MARS guarantees with high probability that the early-stopped answer matches the full-budget vote. In practice, a five-feature logistic model closely matches oracle switching behavior. Across three reasoning models and three competition-math benchmarks, MARS saves 25-47% of self-consistency tokens and 14-29% on top of DeepConf Online, a strong confidence-weighted baseline that already filters and truncates weak traces, while matching the accuracy of the corresponding full-budget baselines.

Reasoning-capable large language models can be induced to spend their generation budget on injected decoy tasks rather than answering the user's question, causing denial of service when no final answer is produced and denial of wallet when excess output tokens are billed. Input-side safety classifiers often miss these attacks because the injected prompts can appear syntactically benign. We build RecurGuard, a runtime monitor for detecting reasoning-chain consumption attacks when reasoning traces are exposed by the model. RecurGuard analyzes reasoning traces as they are generated and tracks three signals: recurrence rate, volume growth, and progress toward the user's query. If all three signals remain anomalous over three consecutive chunks, RecurGuard terminates generation early. We evaluate RecurGuard against OverThink and ExtendAttack across open-weight reasoning models and conduct adaptive stress tests on DS-R1-Qwen-7B. On this model, RecurGuard detects 99% of OverThink attacks and 92% of ExtendAttack instances while maintaining near-zero false positive rates on question answering, code generation, mathematics, and summarization. Adaptive evaluation reveals the limit of the defense: topical attacks retain 11.9x amplification with an approximately 50% joint miss rate, whereas full semantic evasion reduces amplification from 22.8x to 2.2x. When reasoning traces are unavailable, QDM provides a post-hoc fallback monitor based on the final output.

The emergence of "Aha moments" in large language models, particularly DeepSeek-R1-0120, has raised the question of whether these systems genuinely reason or merely imitate the appearance of reasoning. We conduct a comprehensive empirical comparison between model and human reasoning across all 30 problems from AIME 2025, exhaustively annotating 10,247 reasoning steps into five functional categories: Analysis, Inference, Branch, Backtrace, and Reflection. We find a clear structural difference. Human solutions maintain a compact alternation between analysis and deduction, whereas DeepSeek-R1 frequently revisits intermediate results, performs shallow and often unnecessary verification, and loops through local checks without meaningful logical progress. We describe this as topological mimicry: reproducing the surface form of reasoning without its functional role. Despite this, we identify two signals of genuine reasoning. First, successful traces exhibit stable use of branching and backtracking, while failed traces either underuse or overuse exploratory actions. Second, reflection is only effective when placed within deductive inference; reflections trapped in analysis loops focus on local numerical details while missing global logical errors. These findings suggest that current long-CoT models may be rewarded more for the appearance of reasoning than for genuine deductive progress. We discuss directions for improving evaluation and training, including measuring cross-trace stability, penalising "spinning-wheel" traces, encouraging deeper logical correction, and reallocating inference-time compute toward deduction and backtracking. Overall, reasoning quality depends not simply on how much reflection occurs, but on whether reflection appears consistently and at the appropriate logical scale.

Implicit reward hacking is hard to audit when a language model's chain of thought appears benign: a final answer may be anchored by a prompt shortcut while the written reasoning still resembles ordinary problem solving. Verifier-based probes expose such behavior by measuring how early truncated reasoning contexts obtain high reward, but require a task-specific reward signal. This paper proposes a weaker-input alternative, self-commitment latency, which measures how early a prompted reasoning context commits to the model's own final answer. We evaluate the probe in a controlled paired GSM8K setting using Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct-4bit, comparing ordinary prompts with prompts that include an answer hint. Hinted contexts commit substantially earlier and with lower uncertainty than honest contexts. The primary latency metric, first-commitment latency at threshold 0.8, reaches AUROC 0.878; supporting whole-curve summaries reach AUROC 0.926 for commitment range and 0.904 for mean uncommitted mass. The signal is stronger when both prompt conditions answer correctly and remains stable across thresholds. These results show that shortcut-available reasoning contexts can leave an early behavioral commitment signature detectable without a reward model, external judge, or trained classifier.

ReAct-style LLM agents often rediscover the same reasoning routines across problems, yet leave those routines trapped in transient scratchpads. We introduce Reasoning Primitive Induction, a single-pass method that mines successful ReAct traces, clusters recurrent reasoning moves, and converts the most frequent moves into a compact library of typed pseudo-tools. Each pseudo-tool is specified by a natural-language docstring interpreted by an LLM at invocation time, and a standard ReAct loop composes these primitives at test time. The central result is that induced libraries outperform the very agent that generated their traces: by +44pp on RuleArena NBA (30 -> 74), +30pp on MuSR team allocation (38 -> 68), and +22pp on NatPlan meeting planning (7 -> 29). Across five comparable subtasks spanning narrative deduction, rule application, and constraint-satisfaction planning, a single fixed configuration improves over zero-shot Chain-of-Thought on every subtask, matches or surpasses expert-authored decompositions, and outperforms AWM at lower average inference cost.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined. While recent evidence shows that additional reasoning can lead models to overthink, we ask: "Once a model has reached the correct answer, does further reasoning refine the solution, or deviate from it?" To study the dynamics after correctness, we introduce a prefix-level trajectory evaluation protocol grounded in reasoning sufficiency, defining the minimum reasoning budget required for a model to first generate the correct answer. This allows us to disentangle verbose overthinking, where additional reasoning is redundant but harmless, from harmful overthinking, where continued reasoning destabilizes an already-correct trajectory. Starting from multimodal benchmarks, we find that many instances considered reasoning-intensive require surprisingly little reasoning. Moreover, stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%, revealing that current models are limited not only by their ability to reason, but also by their inability to stop at the right time. Furthermore, while common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking (up to 50%), they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking. Failure analysis reveals that correctness deviations are mainly driven by logical drift and visual reinterpretation. Finally, we show that our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk. Code available at https://simonecaldarella.github.io/thinking-past-the-answer.

This paper investigates the entropy dynamics of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and uncovers a consistent two-phase structure: an Uncertainty Region of exploration transitioning sharply to a Confidence Region of convergence. We demonstrate that the Confidence Region possesses two critical properties: 1) High Reliability -- answers in the confidence region become highly accurate and stable, and 2) High Redundancy -- models generate unnecessary tokens long after reaching the correct answer. These properties unlock more efficient and reliable inference strategies: 1) Early Exit leverages reliability and redundancy to terminate computation safely when returns diminish, and 2)Test-Time Scaling uses the Confidence Region signal to prioritize converged trajectories. To operationalize these insights, we formulate Confidence Region detection as a sequential change-point detection problem, being the first to apply classical change-point methods to monitor CoT reasoning. Using the Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) algorithm, a statistically optimal change-point detector, we develop a training-free framework for real-time inference control. Experiments show our approach establishes a superior Pareto-frontier for early exit. CUSUM achieves 63.06% accuracy with 11.1% token reduction, outperforming DEER and Dynasor by 3.28% and 4.36% in accuracy respectively. For test-time scaling, CUSUM-weighted voting consistently outperforms self-consistency.

Reasoning traces have become a valuable form of learning signals for improving and transferring the capabilities of large language models. In particular, detailed traces can help distill reasoning behavior from stronger teacher models into weaker student models. The value of capability transfer has motivated many deployed systems with reasoning models to hide raw internal traces and expose at most summaries and answers to users. As a result, we ask whether such interface-level trace hiding prevents users from obtaining useful reasoning supervision through prompting. We study this question with Reasoning Exposure Prompting (REP), a lightweight in-context elicitation method that uses shadow-model-generated demonstrations wrapped in auxiliary code-like formats to raise user-visible reasoning traces from a victim model. Across the common reasoning dataset, different victim models, and different student model distillation, REP substantially increases similarity between exposed and REP-conditioned internal traces while preserving useful reasoning signals.

Language model reasoning traces are rarely all-or-nothing; they frequently contain valid intermediate steps before a critical error occurs. Existing uncertainty quantification methods typically certify final answers or entire responses, failing to provide statistical guarantees for the proportion of a sequential trace that can be safely retained. To address this, we introduce CROP (Conformal Reasoning Output Prefixes), a verifier-agnostic calibration procedure for clean-prefix certification. Given any step-level risk proxy, CROP selects a calibrated threshold and returns the longest contiguous prefix whose step risk proxies remain below it, routing the uncertified suffix for downstream review or repair. Assuming exchangeability, CROP rigorously controls the marginal probability that the returned prefix contains an annotated error. Across six process-labeled reasoning datasets, we demonstrate that standard step-level metrics such as AUROC do not fully capture prefix utility, suggesting verifiers should instead be evaluated by certified prefix length. Furthermore, CROP balances over- and under-withholding, improving downstream repair accuracy by preserving valid intermediate reasoning while discarding misleading suffixes. Ultimately, this work positions prefix certification as a rigorous, practical bridge between process supervision, abstention, and repair.

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.

Long chain-of-thought (CoT) traces are widely used as supervision for reasoning-oriented LLM SFT, yet answer-correct traces can still lead to markedly different fine-tuning outcomes. We study post-conclusion continuation in answer-correct long-CoT data: a continuation where the answer appears sufficiently supported, but the trace continues with additional reasoning that remains in the supervised target. To test its training effect, we use a delete-only editor to construct answer-preserving suffix removal and compare CoT-based SFT on the original and processed traces. We observe improved SFT outcomes after removing the editor-identified post-conclusion continuation, suggesting that this continuation is harmful to training in our setting. We therefore refer to this empirically supported phenomenon as harmful continuation. Beyond this intervention, we further characterize the removed post-conclusion continuation through uncertainty and hidden-state progress. We observe persistent local uncertainty together with weakened terminal-directional progress, forming an uncertainty--geometry mismatch. Finally, we instantiate Harmful Continuation Cut (HCC), a lightweight boundary proxy that approximates the editor-identified post-conclusion continuation boundary.

Chain-of-thought traces from large reasoning models can span tens of thousands of tokens, yet we lack a vocabulary for describing their internal structure. Previous methods developed to analyze chain-of-thought traces are either too rigid or not expressive enough, failing to capture features across domains and models. To remedy this, we develop ReasonOps, an unsupervised, expressive method for annotating chain-of-thought traces, providing succinct universal operators. Using ReasonOps, we analyze 44,662 traces from 12 thinking LLMs spanning 6 families across 8 reasoning benchmarks and discover that they share a common compositional structure: 7 recurring reasoning operators -- discourse-level moves such as backtracking, inferring, and hypothesizing -- that emerge from unsupervised clustering of sentence-initial 3-token pivots. These operators appear across every model family and benchmark domain, confirmed by three independent LLM judges who classify held-out samples at 70 -76% accuracy. We analyze the structure of operators on easy vs. hard problems, revealing that reflective operators are more helpful on hard problems and harm performance on easy problems. Operator sequences are highly model-identifying: a classifier trained on operator distributions alone recovers the source model with macro-AUC, revealing that each model family has a distinctive reasoning fingerprint. Structural operator features predict within-problem answer correctness well above baselines. Classifiers built on these operators reach WP-AUC and on AIME specifically. ReasonOps further enables early quality estimation well before the trace completes: we predict at WP-AUC for only 50% of the trace. The ReasonOps pipeline is unsupervised and annotation-free, enabling deep insights into LLM reasoning traces as well as strong downstream results on model identification and correctness prediction.

Reasoning models are evaluated on single-turn benchmarks but deployed in multi-turn dialogue, where users push back on correct answers. Under sustained adversarial pressure we find a previously undocumented failure mode: the chain-of-thought stays factually correct from first turn to last while the emitted answer flips wrong. We call this unfaithful capitulation (UC) and isolate it with a $2\times 2$ latent-versus-behavioral framework that flip-rate metrics and single-turn faithfulness probes both miss. Across three datasets (MT-Consistency, MMLU-Pro, GSM8K), the latent-correct rate at the behavioral flip clusters near 50% in think mode and collapses to 11-15% under no_think -- paired, within-model causal evidence that reasoning creates the gap. Across models the effect tracks the reasoning channel (high in Qwen3-32B and GPT-OSS-20B, low in inline-CoT Gemma-4-31B-it). An independent GPT-4o judge corroborates $86\%$ of UC labels; a token-level probe shows the answer-slot argmax is correct in $84\%$ of UC cells; and a naive trace-anchored defense backfires. We release all trajectories, traces, and judge labels.

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.

Language models can use verifiable rewards to improve at a wide variety of reasoning tasks. However, both parametric (e.g. RLVR) and non-parametric (e.g. prompt optimization) approaches to doing so typically require hundreds of training samples and thousands of model rollouts, making them expensive in the best case and intractable in the worst. To address this challenge, we introduce Contrastive Reflection (CORE), a non-parametric learning algorithm that compares past reasoning traces to generate insights: short natural-language descriptions of reasoning strategies and constraints that capture differences between successful and unsuccessful problem attempts. Across four reasoning tasks, we demonstrate that CORE enables more rapid improvement than both parametric (GRPO) and non-parametric (GEPA, episodic RAG, and MemRL) methods, while using fewer rollouts. Under fixed rollout budgets with as few as five training samples, CORE achieves the strongest performance in most task-data regimes. Finally, we highlight how CORE is substantially more context-efficient than non-parametric baselines, requiring fewer prompt tokens while storing learned knowledge as compact, interpretable natural-language insights. Our results therefore suggest that distilling contrasts between successful and unsuccessful reasoning traces into abstract and useful insights can provide a more efficient and interpretable route to model self-improvement than weight updates, prompt optimization, or direct reuse of stored reasoning traces.

Reasoning models often generate long traces in which useful self-correction and unproductive revision are hard to distinguish. We study this distinction through backtracking dynamics: local reconsideration, retraction, or re-derivation inside long-form reasoning traces. On 6{,}000 Qwen3-8B AIME traces, we annotate segment-level backtrack severity and analyze event timing, normalized depth, and local burst structure. We find that early isolated repair is often compatible with correct reasoning, whereas incorrect traces more often show moderate-to-severe backtracks that persist and cluster late. Cross-corpus checks show the same qualitative asymmetry across additional model/domain pairs. Filtering analyses instantiate the signal as a prefix-causal selective early-exit policy: at shallow and intermediate depths, burst-aware filtering outperforms fixed length-based filtering while using only prefix-available features. Moderate length cutoffs remain strong completed-trace baselines, but burst-aware control provides a deployable mechanism for separating recoverable repair from likely instability.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve strong mathematical reasoning performance in English, but remain much less reliable in many low- and medium-resource languages. This gap is often explained as a failure to understand non-English problem statements. We show that this view is incomplete: even when the problem is given in English, controlling the model's reasoning language can substantially reduce accuracy, suggesting that language also affects reasoning execution itself. To study this effect, we introduce DATG, a Directed Acyclic Trace Graph framework that maps reasoning traces to language-independent mathematical anchors and dependencies. This allows us to align target-language traces with reference DAGs and measure whether they cover required mathematical nodes, respect dependency edges, and avoid harmful mathematical actions. Experiments on the Qwen3 series across 12 languages show that non-English reasoning often suffers from reduced anchor coverage and weaker dependency fidelity, especially in low-resource languages. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose Loop-Retry and Formula-Retry, two simple test-time controls targeting DATG-exposed failure modes, and show that they consistently improve target-language reasoning performance in low-resource languages.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has advanced large language models (LLMs), but outcome-based supervision leads to pervasive post-hoc rationalization, producing plausible yet unfaithful reasoning chains. Most prior faithfulness assessment methods are either unscalable, expensive, or unreliable. We propose GeoFaith, a spatio-temporal framework that leverages latent geometric structure and entropy dynamics to diagnose and enforce faithful reasoning. We develop a scalable bootstrapping pipeline expanding step-level annotations from 1k to 20k samples across four domains, train an 8B faithfulness detector outperforming GPT-5 on standard benchmarks, and design a faithfulness-aware reinforcement learning framework jointly optimizing outcome correctness, process faithfulness, and trajectory consistency. Experiments show the proposed method achieves superior performance on both faithfulness detection and downstream reasoning, producing shorter, more interpretable chains without sacrificing accuracy. Our code will be made available publicly.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) generate chain-of-thought (CoT) traces before producing final outputs, introducing a dynamic internal state that may complicate control mechanisms such as refusal. Unlike instruction-tuned LLMs, where refusal is mediated by a single directional subspace, refusal in large reasoning models (LRMs) additionally depends on the CoT. In DeepSeek-R1-Distill-LLaMA-8B, activation steering reverses refusal in only 39% of cases when the CoT is kept fixed, but removing the CoT entirely increases this to 70%, indicating that the CoT actively reinforces refusal. In a two-stage intervention where the model regenerates its CoT under activation steering, refusal is reversed in 94% of cases, while the resulting CoT alone retains 48% of this effect even after steering is removed. This suggests that the CoT can carry and reconstruct the compliance signal independently. These findings indicate that refusal in LRMs is jointly encoded in residual stream activations and CoT. This joint activation makes LRM more robust against activation-level interventions alone, but exposes CoT to a possible alternative surface attack.

Large Language Model interfaces are increasingly verbose, exposing intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers. Traces are framed as transparency mechanisms, yet it is unclear how people use them to solve problems. We report a preregistered between-subjects study (N = 559) in which participants solved ten LSAT-style reasoning problems under one of three conditions: an Answer-only baseline, a Full-trace revealed before the answer, and a Summary-trace presented alongside the answer. Summaries preserved task performance at the no-trace baseline while significantly elevating trust and hedonic appeal, establishing that trace exposure shifts subjective appraisal of the interaction without bringing performance benefits. Under an open-weight reasoning model exposing verbose intermediate output, full traces additionally impaired performance relative to the answer-only baseline. Across all conditions, participants substantially overestimated their performance, and no trace format supported calibrated self-evaluation. Further analysis indicates that hedonic appeal, not trust, carries the indirect path to overestimation, consistent with a processing-fluency account. Reasoning traces are best understood as user-facing interface artifacts rather than transparent windows into model cognition, and calibration is unlikely to emerge from the traces themselves and may best be scaffolded by interactions that elicit users' own reasoning first.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves the problem-solving ability of large language models (LLMs), but generated reasoning traces may not faithfully reflect the model's actual decision process. Existing CoT unfaithfulness detectors mainly rely on external signals from generated rationales, such as textual plausibility or answer consistency, while overlooking evidence from the model's internal computation. Although recent circuit tracing methods provide a way to obtain model-internal evidence by tracing how information flows through model components during reasoning, constructing full reasoning circuits for long CoTs is costly and difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we propose Circuit-guided Internal-External Discrepancy Scorer (CIE-Scorer), a framework for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection. The key idea is that faithful reasoning traces should align with the model's computational process, whereas unfaithful traces may diverge from it. CIE-Scorer efficiently traces compact sentence-level circuits from informative reasoning tokens, constructs internal and external reasoning graphs, and measures their discrepancy using Fused Gromov--Wasserstein distance. Experiments on four datasets from FaithCoT-Bench show that CIE-Scorer achieves state-of-the-art performance while reducing the cost of circuit construction, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining mechanistic interpretability signals with external reasoning traces for CoT unfaithfulness detection.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is useful for monitoring language models only when the reasoning trace faithfully reflects the computation that produces the final answer. However, models can rely on prompt-to-answer shortcuts that bypass the CoT, making the visible reasoning trace misleading even when it appears plausible. We study CoT faithfulness through a structural information-flow perspective: faithful reasoning should route answer-relevant information through the mediated path from prompt to CoT to answer, rather than through a direct prompt-to-answer shortcut. This perspective yields a task-agnostic framework based on three complementary properties, sufficiency, completeness, and necessity, which we instantiate with entropy-based, masked-KL, and gradient-based diagnostics. We show that these metrics recover externally judged faithfulness differences in hinted reasoning, and identify a low-entropy failure mode of KL-based diagnostics where gradient-based measures remain more stable. Building on this analysis, we introduce update-time interventions for verifier-based on-policy RL, including attention masking, backward-only gradient masking, CoT gradients, and adversarial perturbations of prompt representations. Across hinted arithmetic, reward-hackable code repair, and DAPO-Math models trained without hints but evaluated under wrong-hint injection, our interventions shift behavioral and structural indicators toward stronger CoT mediation. In particular, they make shortcut and reward-hacking behavior more transparent in the CoT and improve task-agnostic faithfulness metrics, while in some settings also reducing wrong-hint susceptibility. Our results suggest that controlling information flow during training is a practical route toward more faithful and monitorable CoT reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/safety-research/faithful-cot.

The emergence of Large Reasoning Language Models (LRMs) has paved the way for tackling complex reasoning tasks through test-time scaling by generating long-form Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories during inference. Meanwhile, these trajectories often contain explicit reflection markers such as wait'', but'', and ``alternatively'', signaling hesitation, revision, and the consideration of alternative explorations, respectively. Recent studies on test-time control leverage such markers as lightweight handles for steering reasoning, typically treating them as a single coarse-grained category rather than distinguishing their distinct functional roles. In this paper, we conduct type-wise suppression and fixed-prefix intervention, revealing that reflection markers differ not only in their functional roles but also in when they exert the greatest influence. Specifically, different marker classes affect accuracy and generation length in distinct ways, and marker choices are most consequential before the model settles into a stable reasoning trajectory. Motivated by these findings, we introduce PathCal, a novel training-free decoding controller that calibrates reasoning paths by distinguishing marker types and intervening only at locally uncertain states. At each decoding step, PathCal utilizes the distribution over reflection-markers to estimate local competition between maintaining the current reasoning trajectory and initiating a competing branch, and softly rebalances marker logits when competing-branch evidence becomes excessive. Experiments across six reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that PathCal achieves a better efficiency--performance trade-off, improving or preserving accuracy while reducing generation length, without relying on external verifiers or additional sampling.

Diagnosing failures in LLM agents remains largely manual. Practitioners inspect a small subset of execution traces, form ad-hoc hypotheses, and iterate. This process misses patterns that only emerge across trace populations and does not scale to production corpora where individual traces span tens of thousands of tokens. We formalize the problem of corpus-level trace diagnostics. Given a corpus of execution traces, the goal is to produce grounded natural-language insights that characterize systematic behavioral patterns across trace groups, each linked to supporting evidence. We present the Insights Generator (IG), a multi-agent system that answers diagnostic questions by proposing and testing hypotheses across the trace corpus to produce an evidence-backed insights report. We evaluate IG across qualitative and objective dimensions, spanning rubric-based report assessment and downstream performance improvements achieved by implementing IG insights. Human experts using IG reports improve scaffold performance by 30.4 pp over the unmodified baseline scaffold, and coding agents leveraging IG-derived insights show consistent and stable gains. Across benchmarks, IG's scout-investigator architecture produces findings comparable in detection coverage to competing approaches, while domain experts rated IG reports as leading depth and evidence quality.

Explicit reasoning models are trained to produce intermediate reasoning traces before final answers, but downstream fine-tuning is often performed on ordinary instruction--response data that contains no such traces. We show that this mismatch can induce reasoning-trace collapse: a fine-tuned model continues to produce plausible final answers while losing the structurally valid explicit reasoning traces that made it a reasoning model in the first place. We introduce a structural evaluation framework that separates answer correctness from reasoning-trace validity, measuring valid, empty, missing, and truncated reasoning alongside reasoning-conditioned task performance. Using this framework, we study four open-weight reasoning models and find that standard supervised fine-tuning can rapidly suppress valid reasoning traces, and that answer-only metrics can substantially obscure this failure: in several settings, performance conditional on valid reasoning remains high while the rate of valid reasoning falls sharply. We further show that simple loss-masking strategies can substantially mitigate collapse without requiring teacher-generated reasoning traces. These results suggest that evaluations of fine-tuned reasoning models should report structural reasoning reliability metrics in addition to final-answer performance, especially when adaptation data does not contain explicit reasoning traces.