Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

How Do LLMs Perform Two-Hop Reasoning in Context?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.13913 v2 pith:XLKT2XBH submitted 2025-02-19 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords reasoningtwo-hopllmsstepsconceptsconclusionfinalguessing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

``Socrates is human. All humans are mortal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.'' This form of argument illustrates a typical pattern of two-hop reasoning. Formally, two-hop reasoning refers to the process of inferring a conclusion by making two logical steps, each connecting adjacent concepts, such that the final conclusion depends on the integration of both steps. It is one of the most fundamental components of human reasoning and plays a crucial role in both formal logic and everyday decision-making. Despite recent progress in large language models (LLMs), we surprisingly find that they can fail at solving simple two-hop reasoning problems when distractors are present. We observe on a synthetic dataset that pre-trained LLMs often resort to random guessing among all plausible conclusions. However, after few steps of fine-tuning, models achieve near-perfect accuracy and exhibit strong length generalization. To understand the underlying mechanisms, we train a 3-layer Transformer from scratch on a synthetic two-hop reasoning task and reverse-engineer its internal information flow. We observe a clear progression in the attention logits throughout training. This pictures a sharp phase transition from an initial stage of random guessing to the emergence of a structured sequential query mechanism, where the model first retrieves the preceding and the bridge concepts in the early layers and then uses them to infer the final answer. Finally, we show that these dynamics can be captured by a minimal three-parameter attention-only network.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Loop the Loopies!

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With two recurrent passes per layer and a compute-matched scaling recipe, 20B and 6B MoE models beat vanilla Transformers trained on the same wall-clock budget.

  2. Unveiling the Mechanisms of Multi-Hop Reasoning in Transformers via Identity Bridge

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding identity supervision on bridge tokens enables out-of-distribution two-hop reasoning in simple transformers, with a nuclear-norm theory explaining the benefit.

  3. Weak-to-Strong GraphRAG: Aligning Weak Retrievers with Large Language Models for Graph-based Retrieval Augmented Generation

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ReG refines weak graph-retriever supervision with LLM-selected reasoning chains and reorganizes retrieved triples into coherent evidence chains, improving KGQA accuracy, data efficiency, and reasoning token efficiency.

  4. A Survey on Latent Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes latent reasoning methods into vertical recurrence, horizontal recurrence, and infinite-depth diffusion, arguing that silent reasoning can beat explicit chain-of-thought.

Pith tools