Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Raw, verbose reasoning traces give the best fine-tuning accuracy but score worst with human readers, evidence that chain-of-thought traces are training signals, not user explanations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

On CoTemp QA, supervised fine-tuning with raw R1 traces gave the best model accuracy while human raters found those traces least interpretable, showing model-useful traces and human-readable traces can diverge.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The core mismatch is real but the paper overreads it; the human ratings likely track trace length, and the reporting is sloppier than it should be. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2508.16695 v1 pith:45J2XELT submitted 2025-08-21 cs.CL cs.AI

Do Cognitively Interpretable Reasoning Traces Improve LLM Performance?

Siddhant Bhambri , Upasana Biswas , Subbarao Kambhampati This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords chain-of-thought tracesinterpretabilitysupervised fine-tuningknowledge distillationDeepSeek R1open-book question answeringCoTemp QAcognitive workload
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a chain-of-thought reasoning trace must be readable by humans in order to be useful for improving a language model's task performance. The authors fine-tune four LLaMA and Qwen models on the same open-book QA questions under four trace formats: raw verbose DeepSeek R1 chains, summaries of those chains, post-hoc explanations of them, and algorithmically generated fact-verified traces. The raw R1 traces produce the largest accuracy gains, while the fact-verified traces humans like best produce the smallest. A 100-participant rating study then shows those same R1 traces scoring lowest on every interpretability dimension and highest on mental demand, effort, and frustration. The paper concludes that interpretability and training utility pull in opposite directions, so CoT traces should be treated as internal aids with separate user-facing explanations.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a reasoning trace's value as a fine-tuning signal and its value as a human explanation are decoupled. Fine-tuned on the same open-book QA questions under identical hyperparameters, models trained on raw DeepSeek R1 traces reach the highest final-answer accuracy on three of four tested models, while models trained on algorithmically generated fact-verified traces — the format readers found most interpretable — reach the lowest. In the companion user study, the same raw R1 traces received the lowest median ratings on every interpretability dimension and the highest on every workload dimension, with the differences statistically significant. The authors conclud

What carries the argument

The controlled comparison of four trace formats generated from the same dataset: raw DeepSeek R1 chains, GPT-4o-mini summaries of those chains, GPT-4o-mini post-hoc explanations, and algorithmically generated fact-verified minimal traces. The same four small models are fine-tuned on each trace type with identical hyperparameters, so final-answer accuracy on the CoTemp QA benchmark isolates the effect of trace format. On the human side, a rating protocol covering predictability, comprehensibility, interpretability, and faithfulness, plus a standard workload questionnaire, measures perceived interpretability and cognitive load for the very same traces. The pairing of accuracy numbers and perce

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating 25 readers' Likert ratings of five fixed examples as a valid measure of how interpretable a trace really is; if self-reported readability does not track what a reader actually understands, the reported mismatch may be about perceived polish rather than real comprehension.

What would settle it

Assign new participants objective comprehension tasks instead of rating scales — predict the next step of a trace, spot an injected false statement, or reconstruct the answer in their own words after reading only the trace. If readers of raw R1 traces perform as well as readers of concise fact-verified traces on these tasks, the claim that R1 traces are less interpretable would collapse; if they perform worse, the paper's conclusion would be reinforced with a behavioral foundation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning on raw, verbose R1 traces beats fine-tuning on concise, readable, or fact-verified traces for final-answer accuracy on this benchmark, so clean traces are not a free lunch for distillation.
  • Users consistently rate the best-performing traces as least predictable, comprehensible, interpretable, and faithful, and as the most mentally demanding, so showing raw traces to end users is likely counterproductive.
  • Summaries and post-hoc explanations occupy a middle ground: somewhat lower accuracy than raw traces but markedly higher readability, giving deployers a concrete trade-off to tune.
  • The paper's framing implies CoT traces should be treated as internal computation, with user-facing explanations produced separately, which the authors state as the main takeaway.
  • Interpretability ratings of a trace are not a proxy for how much that trace improves the model, so reasoning quality judged by human readability may misalign with training value.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because summaries and explanations passed through a second model, some of the accuracy gap could be transcription loss rather than readability; a testable control is fine-tuning on R1 traces truncated to summary length.
  • The token-count confound: R1 traces are much longer, and holding length constant would test whether the advantage comes from verbose coverage rather than R1's style.
  • If the decoupling holds for math and coding, reasoning-benchmark design should stop treating human readability of traces as a quality signal and instead measure faithfulness behaviorally.
  • The self-report ratings may not reflect real comprehension; a behavioral follow-up (error-spotting, next-step prediction) would test whether traces rated 'interpretable' actually transfer understanding.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether Chain-of-Thought reasoning traces must be cognitively interpretable to serve as effective supervision signals for LLM fine-tuning. In the Open Book QA domain (CoTemp QA), the authors supervised fine-tune LLaMA-3.2-1B, LLaMA-3.1-8B, Qwen3-1.7B, and Qwen3-8B on four trace types: DeepSeek R1 traces, GPT-4o-mini-generated summaries of R1 traces, GPT-4o-mini-generated post-hoc explanations of R1 traces, and algorithmically generated verifiably correct traces. They report that R1 traces yield the highest final-answer accuracy on three of four models. In parallel, a between-subjects human study (100 Prolific participants, 25 per condition) rated R1 traces as the least interpretable across predictability, comprehensibility, interpretability, and faithfulness, and as imposing the highest cognitive workload. The authors conclude that trace utility for model training is decoupled from end-user interpretability.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and practically important: a growing number of systems expose CoT traces to users while using them as distillation targets. If the paper's central claim holds, it would provide empirical justification for decoupling training-time trace generation from user-facing explanation design, with implications for model distillation, interface design, and interpretability research. The study design is sensible in broad strokes: it compares multiple trace types, uses a controlled QA benchmark, and includes a human evaluation with instruments adapted from prior interpretability literature. The paper also transparently provides implementation details and prompts in the appendix. However, the evidentiary basis currently has gaps that directly affect the strength of the claim: the SFT results lack variance reporting and significance testing, and the human-study comparison is confounded by trace length/verbosity, which is particularly concerning because R1 traces are explicitly described as excessively verbose while the other trace types are concise by construction. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they need to be addressed before the dec

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 1] The principal interpretability comparison is confounded with trace length and verbosity. DeepSeek R1 traces are described as 'excessively verbose' (Introduction, citing [10]), while summaries, post-hoc explanations, and algorithmically generated correct traces are concise by construction. The human raters' lower predictability, comprehensibility, and higher mental demand/effort/frustration for R1 traces are exactly what one would expect from longer, more textually dense stimuli, independent of any deeper semantic property. The paper does not match trace types on token count, number of reasoning steps, formatting, or visual layout, nor does it analyze whether ratings correlate with trace length within or across conditions. Without such a control or analysis, the headline mismatch—'least interpretable yet best-performing'—may simply reflect that verbose traces are harder for lay users to f
  2. [Section 3, Figure 1] The SFT accuracy results are presented without error bars, confidence intervals, or any statistical significance testing. It appears that each model was fine-tuned once per trace type, which provides no information about run-to-run variance (e.g., due to data ordering, LoRA initialization, or hyperparameter sensitivity). Consequently, the observed differences—e.g., the gap between R1 traces and summaries/explanations—cannot be distinguished from noise. At minimum, the authors should report multiple seeds (with mean and standard deviation or bootstrapped CIs) or provide pairwise significance tests (e.g., matched-pair bootstrap) for the accuracy differences. Without this, the performance half of the decoupling claim is not quantitatively established.
  3. [Section 4, B.5 Statistical Analysis (Table 3)] The human study has limited measurement validity and some claims are not fully supported by the reported statistics. (1) Each condition uses 25 participants and only five fixed examples; there is no evidence that these examples are representative of the trace diversity in the SFT data, and the Likert items are not validated against actual comprehension or task performance. (2) The text states that R1 traces imposed higher mental demand/effort/frustration relative to other trace types, but Table 3 shows that the Mental Demand difference is not significant for R1 vs. Summarized R1 traces (p = 0.055) and R1 vs. Explanations (p = 0.21), even before Bonferroni adjustment. These non-significant results should be acknowledged and the wording tempered, or the threshold/correction procedure clarified. This does not necessarily overturn the overall direction, but it weakens the cognitive-workload
  4. [Section 3, Results paragraph] The results section refers to 'SFT with the adversarially-generated incorrect traces perform the worst,' but the four trace types introduced in the paper are (1) R1 traces, (2) summaries, (3) post-hoc explanations, and (4) algorithmically generated verifiably correct traces. No 'adversarially-generated incorrect traces' condition is described in the methodology, dataset construction, or Figure 1. If this is an additional control from reference [3], it should be explicitly defined and included in the experimental setup; if it is a typo, it should be corrected. As written, the statement is ambiguous and makes the comparison conditions unclear.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section 1 / Section 4] Participant count is inconsistent: the abstract says 100 participants, the introduction says 125, and Section 4 says 25 per condition for four conditions (100 total). Please harmonize these numbers.
  2. [Section 4, first paragraph] Typo: 'verifiably correct reasoning races' should be 'reasoning traces.'
  3. [Appendix B.4] Placeholders remain in the text: 'see Fig. X' and 'see Fig. Y' should be replaced with actual figure references.
  4. [Appendix B.6, Table 3] The table reports raw p-values and marks significance at α=0.05 'with Bonferroni correction,' but the corrected threshold is not stated. Report adjusted p-values or explicitly state the threshold (e.g., 0.0167 for three comparisons).
  5. [NeurIPS Checklist Item 7] The checklist answers 'Yes' to 'Does the paper report error bars... or other appropriate information about statistical significance?' but this only applies to the user study, not the SFT experiments. If the SFT results are central, the checklist should be corrected or the SFT analysis should include such statistics.
  6. [Section 5 Discussion] The discussion slides between 'semantic structure,' 'semantic correctness,' and 'cognitive interpretability.' These are distinct constructs; using them interchangeably muddies the claim. Please define the relationship (e.g., whether R1 traces are semantically correct but not cognitively interpretable, or neither).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; central claim rests on direct measurement (SFT accuracy and human Likert ratings) rather than on equations or fitted parameters. A few self-citations supply data/motivation but are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison, not an analytic derivation. Section 3 measures final-answer accuracy after SFT on four trace types; the accuracy numbers are direct experimental outputs, not functions of the trace definitions. Section 4 measures interpretability with participant Likert ratings on items taken from external interpretability literature ([5,9]), and workload with NASA-TLX; these measurements are independent of the performance results. The 'algorithmically generated verifiably correct traces' used as a control are imported from the authors' prior paper [3], but they enter as a dataset/condition, not as a proof step: the current paper's SFT accuracy for that condition and the human ratings of that condition are newly collected. Similarly, [10] (verbose R1) and [20] (semantically incorrect traces can still help) are motivational citations; the paper's own experiments would stand or fall on Figure 1 and Table 1 independent of those citations. The most plausible threat to the interpretation—that the R1 traces' verbosity, rather than their semantic (non-)interpretability, drives both low human ratings and high SFT utility—is a confound/validity concern, not circularity: it does not make the accuracy result equal to the trace-generation prompt by construction. Consistent with the rubric's default expectation, the paper is largely self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is low. Score 2 reflects the presence of several self-citations, none of which is load-bearing in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, forces, or conserved quantities. Its central claim rests on empirical assumptions about measurement validity, example representativeness, and scope generalization. No numeric free parameter is fitted to data in the service of the central claim; the free parameters listed are methodological choices. The strongest hidden load is the unvalidated link between Likert ratings and true interpretability.

free parameters (2)
  • SFT hyperparameters = rank 16, alpha 32, lr 2e-4, 3 epochs, batch 16, max length 1024
    Chosen by the authors as standard QLoRA settings; not fitted to the CoTemp QA data, and not shown to be robust to variation. They are method choices rather than parameters fitted to produce the central claim.
  • Interpretability Likert questionnaire = 5-point scale, four interpretability plus three workload items
    The specific items and scale were adapted from prior work (Doshi-Velez & Kim, 2017; Jalali et al., 2023) but are treated as a valid measure of interpretability without calibration or validation against behavioral outcomes.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Likert-scale responses to the chosen questions measure cognitive interpretability as experienced by real users.
    Section 4 and Appendix B describe the questionnaire but provide no validation that self-rated predictability, comprehensibility, etc. correlate with actual comprehension, trust, or task performance.
  • domain assumption The five fixed Q/A examples shown to all participants are representative of each trace type's typical interpretability.
    Section B.5 states each participant completed only five tasks; there is no evidence these five examples span the diversity of traces in the training set or that ratings would be stable across other example selections.
  • domain assumption Results from fine-tuning models up to 8B parameters on a simple open-book QA benchmark generalize to larger models and harder tasks.
    The Limitations section explicitly restricts scope to models up to 8B and simple QA problems, yet the conclusion that 'CoT-style traces should only be utilized for optimizing model performance and not end-user interpretability' is stated broadly.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning on traces that include only correct final answers (R1 traces were filtered for correctness) reflects how traces are used in practice.
    Section 3 states the R1 traces were filtered to cases where the model produced the correct final answer; this filtering changes the training distribution and may inflate the performance benefit attributed to trace type.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do Cognitively Interpretable Reasoning Traces Improve LLM Performance?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45J2XELT

@misc{pith2026250816695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do Cognitively Interpretable Reasoning Traces Improve LLM Performance?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45J2XELT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16695}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recent progress in reasoning-oriented Large Language Models (LLMs) has been driven by introducing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces, where models generate intermediate reasoning traces before producing an answer. These traces, as in DeepSeek R1, are not only used to guide inference but also serve as supervision signals for distillation into smaller models. A common but often implicit assumption is that CoT traces should be semantically meaningful and interpretable to the end user. While recent research questions the need for semantic nature of these traces, in this paper, we ask: ``\textit{Must CoT reasoning traces be interpretable to enhance LLM task performance?}" We investigate this question in the Open Book Question-Answering domain by supervised fine-tuning LLaMA and Qwen models on four types of reasoning traces: (1) DeepSeek R1 traces, (2) LLM-generated summaries of R1 traces, (3) LLM-generated post-hoc explanations of R1 traces, and (4) algorithmically generated verifiably correct traces. To quantify the trade-off between interpretability and performance, we further conduct a human-subject study with 100 participants rating the interpretability of each trace type. Our results reveal a striking mismatch: while fine-tuning on R1 traces yields the strongest performance, participants judged these traces to be the least interpretable. These findings suggest that it is useful to decouple intermediate tokens from end user interpretability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16695 by Siddhant Bhambri, Subbarao Kambhampati, Upasana Biswas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Final solution performance on CoTemp QA test dataset after SFT with different trace types on Llama and Qwen models. Dataset and Metrics: CoTemp QA [21] con￾sists of English co-temporal questions which involve identifying the type of temporal rela￾tion posed in the problem, followed by inferring which fact in the given passage of text satisfies the temporal relation with the question. For all our SFT experi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Consent statement shown to partici￾pants before starting the study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Task shown to participants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. R2IF: Aligning Reasoning with Decisions via Composite Rewards for Interpretable LLM Function Calling

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    R2IF improves LLM function-calling accuracy by up to 34.62% on BFCL using a composite reward system with CER and SMV components optimized via GRPO, while increasing interpretability through positive CoT effectiveness.

  2. R2IF: Aligning Reasoning with Decisions via Composite Rewards for Interpretable LLM Function Calling

    cs.LG 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    R2IF uses a composite reward (binary correctness, CoT effectiveness, and parameter-level SMV) under GRPO to align LLM reasoning with function-calling decisions, improving accuracy and reasoning quality on BFCL/ACEBench.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Chain-of-thought reasoning in the wild is not always faithful.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08679, 2025

    Iván Arcuschin, Jett Janiak, Robert Krzyzanowski, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Neel Nanda, and Arthur Conmy. Chain-of-thought reasoning in the wild is not always faithful.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08679, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Chain-of-thought is not explainability

    Fazl Barez, Tung-Yu Wu, Iván Arcuschin, Michael Lan, Vincent Wang, Noah Siegel, Nico- las Collignon, Clement Neo, Isabelle Lee, Alasdair Paren, et al. Chain-of-thought is not explainability. Preprint, alphaXiv, page v2, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Interpretable traces, unex- pected outcomes: Investigating the disconnect in trace-based knowledge distillation

    Siddhant Bhambri, Upasana Biswas, and Subbarao Kambhampati. Interpretable traces, unex- pected outcomes: Investigating the disconnect in trace-based knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13792, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms

    Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:10088– 10115, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning, 2017

    Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    A survey of methods for explaining black box models

    Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 51(5):1–42, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later

    Sandra G Hart. Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, volume 50, pages 904–908. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2006

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Predictability and Comprehensibility in Post-Hoc XAI Methods: A User-Centered Analysis

    Anahid N. Jalali, Bernhard Haslhofer, Simone Kriglstein, and Andreas Rauber. Predictabil- ity and comprehensibility in post-hoc xai methods: A user-centered analysis. ArXiv, abs/2309.11987, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    (how) do reasoning models reason? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025

    Subbarao Kambhampati, Kaya Stechly, and Karthik Valmeekam. (how) do reasoning models reason? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large lan- guage model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGOPS 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning

    Tamera Lanham, Anna Chen, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Benoit Steiner, Carson Denison, Danny Hernandez, Dustin Li, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, Jackson Kernion, et al. Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13702, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Towards better chain-of-thought: A reflection on effectiveness and faithfulness

    Jiachun Li, Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Jiexin Xu, Huaijun Li, Xiaojian Jiang, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Towards better chain-of-thought: A reflection on effectiveness and faithfulness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18915, 2024. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning

    Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. In The 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL 2023), 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Teaching small language models to reason

    Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. Teaching small language models to reason. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08410, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Mann-whitney u test

    Patrick E McKnight and Julius Najab. Mann-whitney u test. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology, pages 1–1, 2010

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Introducing gpt-oss

    OpenAI. Introducing gpt-oss. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-oss/ ,

    work page

  18. [18]

    Making reasoning matter: Measur- ing and improving faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning

    Debjit Paul, Robert West, Antoine Bosselut, and Boi Faltings. Making reasoning matter: Measur- ing and improving faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13950, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models

    Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Beyond semantics: The unreasonable effectiveness of reasonless intermediate tokens

    Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam, Atharva Gundawar, Vardhan Palod, and Subbarao Kamb- hampati. Beyond semantics: The unreasonable effectiveness of reasonless intermediate tokens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13775, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Living in the moment: Can large language models grasp co-temporal reasoning? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09072, 2024

    Zhaochen Su, Juntao Li, Jun Zhang, Tong Zhu, Xiaoye Qu, Pan Zhou, Yan Bowen, Yu Cheng, et al. Living in the moment: Can large language models grasp co-temporal reasoning? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09072, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    On the hardness of faithful chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models

    Sree Harsha Tanneru, Dan Ley, Chirag Agarwal, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. On the hardness of faithful chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10625, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Beyond answers: Transferring reasoning capabilities to smaller llms using multi-teacher knowledge distillation

    Yijun Tian, Yikun Han, Xiusi Chen, Wei Wang, and Nitesh V Chawla. Beyond answers: Transferring reasoning capabilities to smaller llms using multi-teacher knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 251–260, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Measuring chain of thought faithfulness by unlearning reasoning steps

    Martin Tutek, Fateme Hashemi Chaleshtori, Ana Marasovi´c, and Yonatan Belinkov. Measuring chain of thought faithfulness by unlearning reasoning steps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14829, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. Transformers: State-of-the-art na...

    2020

  26. [26]

    How inter- pretable are reasoning explanations from prompting large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11863, 2024

    Wei Jie Yeo, Ranjan Satapathy, Rick Siow Mong Goh, and Erik Cambria. How inter- pretable are reasoning explanations from prompting large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11863, 2024. 6 A Additional Experiment Details A.1 Dataset CoTemp QA: The dataset is categorized into four temporal relation types, namely - ‘equal’, ‘overlap’, ‘during’ and ‘mi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    Facts: A short list of factual statements about a person. 8

    work page

  28. [29]

    Question: A query based on the passage

    work page

  29. [30]

    Model’s Answer: The response generated by the AI model

    work page

  30. [31]

    After reviewing this information, participants rated statements about the reasoning on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree–Strongly Agree)

    Reasoning: A step-by-step explanation of how the model arrived at its answer. After reviewing this information, participants rated statements about the reasoning on a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree–Strongly Agree). Figure 5: Example shown to participants. Figure 6: Task shown to participants. Figure 7: Example (left) and task (right) shown to par...

    work page

  31. [32]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper

    Claims Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper’s contributions and scope? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The claims made in the abstract and introduction are clearly defined in the later parts of the paper substantiated with the respective experiment results and findings. Guidelines: • The answer NA me...

    work page

  32. [33]

    Limitations

    Limitations Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The limitations of the work have been included in the Appendix of the paper. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed...

    work page

  33. [34]

    • All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced

    Theory assumptions and proofs Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? Answer: [NA] 12 Justification: N/A Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results. • All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cr...

    work page

  34. [35]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experimental result reproducibility Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)? Answer: [Yes] Justification: All necessary experiment d...

    work page

  35. [36]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code

    Open access to data and code Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? 13 Answer: [Yes] Justification: Both code and data will be released, current submission does not allow attaching data and code in supple...

    work page

  36. [37]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experimental setting/details Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results? Answer: [Yes] Justification: All necessary experiment details have been provided in the Appendix. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that t...

    work page

  37. [38]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiment statistical significance Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Statistical significance tests have been performed for the user study results. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper do...

    work page

  38. [39]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments

    Experiments compute resources Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Experiment compute resource details have been provided in the Appendix. Guidelines: • The answer NA mea...

    work page

  39. [40]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics

    Code of ethics Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? Answer: [Yes] Justification: NeurIPS Code of Ethics has been followed to conduct this research. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Eth...

    work page

  40. [41]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed

    Broader impacts Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Broader impacts of this work have been discussed in the Introduction and Conclusion sections. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed. •...

    work page

  41. [42]

    Safeguards Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)? Answer: [NA] Justification: N/A Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks. • Released models tha...

    work page

  42. [43]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets

    Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected? Answer: [Yes] Justification: Citations and references have been provided everywhere where necessary. Guidelines: • The answer...

    work page

  43. [44]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets

    New assets Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets? Answer: [Yes] Justification: The code that will be released with the paper will be well documented for easy reproducibility. Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets. • Researchers should c...

    work page

  44. [45]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)? Answer: [Yes] Justification: All human subject study details and compensation hav...

    work page

  45. [46]

    Guidelines: • The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

    Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...

    work page

  46. [47]

    Answer: [Yes] Justification: All LLM-usage related details have been clearly provided in the paper where necessary

    Declaration of LLM usage Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology, scientific rigorousness, or originality of the research, decla...

    work page 2025

  47. [2025]

    Accessed: 2025-08-21

    2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.