Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano's Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inverse reasoning lets LLMs explain their own choices.

desk verdict Internal contradictions in the AQUA-RAT numbers make the central claim unverifiable; the conceptual framing is fine but the paper needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00092 v1 pith:UKFOKAYV submitted 2025-06-30 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG

Basab Jha , Firoj Paudel , Ujjwal Puri , Zhang Yuting , Choi Donghyuk , Wang Junhao This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords inversereasoningself-awarelanguagemodelschain-of-thoughtinterpretabilityattentionexplanationmetacognitiontransparency4-billionparametermodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 introduces "inverse reasoning," a paradigm in which a large language model explains its own chain-of-thought after generating it, by reconstructing which tokens and hidden states actually drove each reasoning step. It presents SAGE-nano, a 4-billion-parameter model with a metacognitive architecture that extracts decision points from attention pathways and generates structured explanations with alternatives and confidence scores. The paper claims this dual objective improves both accuracy and explainability, reporting 74.6% on AQUA-RAT and a 92.1% human preference score for explanation quality, while running on consumer hardware with modest overhead. The broader bet is that reasoning transparency is not a tax on performance but a way to improve it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decision significance score in Eq. 7, which converts attention weights, gradient magnitudes, and predictive entropy into a per-token measure of reasoning relevance. The inverse analysis layer thresholds these scores to extract decision points, and the meta-cognitive head then generates explanations that justify each step, list rejected alternatives, and report confidence. The same significance scores also feed the consistency regularizer that aligns the forward and reconstructed reasoning distributions.

What would settle it

On a dataset with ground-truth reasoning steps (e.g., ProofWriter), extract SAGE-nano's decision points and compare them to the actual proof steps; also remove the highest-significance tokens from the input and observe whether the model's answer changes. If the extracted points overlap with the true steps at chance level, or if erasing them leaves the output unchanged, then Eq. 7 is not tracking the reasoning that actually occurred.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a model can be trained to introspect its own reasoning by looking backwards along the attention flow. For each generated step $s_i$, the model records an attention pathway (Eq. 6) and computes a significance score for every context token $t_j$ as the product of attention weight, gradient magnitude, and predictive entropy (Eq. 7). These scores define decision points that the inverse analysis layer feeds into an explanation generator, trained with a meta-learning objective that couples reasoning loss, explanation loss, and a KL consistency term (Eq. 8). On benchmarks from algebra and logic to commonsense, the paper reports that SAGE-nano's explanations are strongly preferred by human raters over LIME, SHAP, and ReAct, and that its reasoning accuracy rivals models many times larger while adding about 14% inference-time overhead.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the attention weights and gradient magnitudes recorded during the forward pass faithfully mark the model's true reasoning decisions, despite the paper itself citing prior work that attention is not explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 4-billion-parameter model can produce explanations that human raters prefer over LIME, SHAP, and ReAct while keeping reasoning accuracy close to models many times larger.
  • The inverse reasoning pipeline adds only about 14% inference-time overhead and 10% memory overhead, making transparent reasoning feasible on a single consumer-class Mac Mini.
  • Adding the inverse training stage improves forward reasoning accuracy as well, with the full model reaching 87.3% on AQUA-RAT in the ablation versus 81.4% for the forward-only variant.
  • The same framework could be adapted to AI safety auditing, tutoring, and scientific discovery by making the model's reasoning steps auditable and contestable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the significance scores in Eq. 7 really mark causal decision points, the method would be a cheap, scalable alternative to mechanistic interpretability; a direct test would compare extracted decision points against activation-patching interventions.
  • The reported accuracy gain from inverse training might partly be a data effect: the third training stage adds 300M tokens of explanation data, so a matched forward-only model trained on the same data would separate the mechanism from the extra data.
  • The same significance score could be reused as a faithfulness check on any chain-of-thought: steps whose tokens have low significance would be flagged as post-hoc rationalization rather than genuine reasoning.
  • The 92.1% human preference figure comes from 15 expert raters, so re-running the preference study with a larger, more diverse rater pool would test whether the quality gap persists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "inverse reasoning," a framework in which a 4-billion-parameter model called SAGE-nano retroactively explains its own chain-of-thought by analyzing attention patterns and hidden states. The authors propose a metacognitive architecture (forward reasoning stack, inverse analysis layer, meta-cognitive head) and claim improvements in both reasoning accuracy and explanation quality, evaluated on AQUA-RAT, GSM8K, LogiQA, CommonsenseQA, ARC, and human preference studies. The central contributions are the inverse reasoning paradigm, a meta-learning objective (Eq. 8), and evaluation protocols for reasoning transparency. The manuscript is undermined by internal numerical inconsistencies on the flagship accuracy metric, contradictions on computational overhead, and an unvalidated assumption that attention weights and gradients reflect actual reasoning decisions.

Significance. If the results were internally consistent and the introspection mechanism were independently validated, inverse reasoning would be a potentially useful contribution to LLM interpretability, and the claim of training a 4B model on consumer hardware would be notable. However, the paper's own tables contradict each other on the primary AQUA-RAT result (74.6% vs. 87.3%), the claimed superiority over baselines is contradicted by its own Table 2, and the introspection evaluation is circular because the extracted "decision points" serve as both the method and the ground truth. No code, model weights, or evaluation scripts are released. These problems prevent any reliable assessment of the core claims, so the significance cannot be evaluated at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 2; Section 6.5, Table 5; Supplementary S1.3] The core accuracy claim is internally inconsistent: Table 2 reports 74.6% AQUA-RAT for SAGE-nano, while Table 5 reports 87.3% for the same 'Full SAGE-nano' configuration, and the supplementary section S1.3 repeats the 87.3% figure. Moreover, the text below Table 2 claims '+5.2% over Claude-3.5-Sonnet' on AQUA-RAT, but Table 2 itself shows Claude-3.5-Sonnet at 82.1%, which is 7.5 points above SAGE-nano's 74.6%. This is a load-bearing contradiction: the abstract and conclusion base the main claim on one of these numbers, and the ablation study's 87.3% is the basis for attributing gains to inverse reasoning. Without a single consistent number, the paper's central empirical claim is not reproducible.
  2. [Section 7.5, Section 6.4 Table 4, Section 9] The reported inference overhead is contradictory: Section 7.5 states that inverse reasoning 'adds significant computational overhead (40% inference time)', while Table 4 shows a +14% inference overhead and the Conclusion repeats '14% computational overhead'. This discrepancy directly affects the claimed efficiency--deployability trade-off and indicates that the experimental reporting is not reliable.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (7); Section 6.3, Fig. 2; Section 7.5] The entire introspection mechanism rests on Eq. (7), which equates attention weights and gradient magnitudes with the 'significance' of decision points. The paper itself cites Jain & Wallace (2019) and Wiegreffe & Pinter (2019) to acknowledge that attention is not explanation, yet no causal validation (e.g., intervening on the identified decision points and measuring changes in model output) is provided. The introspection accuracy reported in Fig. 2 and Table 5 is computed against decision points extracted by the same thresholding procedure, making the evaluation circular. The limitations section concedes that inverse reasoning explanations lack objective ground truth, so the claimed '89.3% decision point identification' accuracy is unverifiable as stated.
  4. [Section 6.2, Table 3; Section 6.3] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any accuracy or preference comparison. The human evaluation uses only 15 PhD-level raters (with Krippendorff's alpha reported), but per-item variance is not given, and the abstract's '92.1% human preference score' does not clearly follow from the 4.6/5 table entry without a stated conversion. The claimed advances on LogiQA and other benchmarks are point estimates with differences as small as 2.5 percentage points; without uncertainty quantification, the superiority claims are unsupported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'Recent mechanistic analysis of CoT reasoning has revealed that LLMs deploy multiple parallel pathways' has no citation; please provide a reference.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (7)] The entropy term Entropy(P(s_i | s_<i, t_j)) is not defined: the conditional distribution of step i given a single token t_j is ambiguous and needs a precise formulation.
  3. [Supplementary Materials] The supplementary section numbering is inconsistent (S1.2.3 is labeled S2.3, S1.3 is labeled S3.1, etc.); please harmonize the numbering.
  4. [References] References [19] and [52] are the same paper (Wang et al., 'Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning'); duplicate entries should be merged.
  5. [Section 9] The conclusion states '92.1% human preference scores', but Table 3 uses a 1--5 scale; if a percentage conversion is intended, it should be stated explicitly in the text.
  6. [Section 6.5, Table 5] Table 5 lists 'Efficiency' as 1.4x for Full SAGE-nano, while Table 4 reports the total inference cost as 1.14x; the units and comparison basis should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Introspection accuracy is measured against decision points produced by the same attention-significance extraction the paper defines, so the core interpretability result is partly self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.3 Eq. (7); Algorithm S1; Sec. 6.3; Sec. 7.5]
    "Significance(tj, i) = wi,j · |∇hj Li| · Entropy(P(si|s<i, tj)) (7) ... Algorithm S1: D ← ExtractDecisionPoints(A, H, threshold = 0.3) ... SAGE-nano demonstrates superior introspection accuracy across all tasks, with particularly strong performance in confidence calibration (91.2%) and decision point identification (89.3%). ... inverse reasoning explanations lack objective ground truth, making validation difficult."

    The decision points D that the inverse layer is supposed to find are extracted from the very attention weights and gradients prescribed in Eq. (7) and Algorithm S1. The paper gives no independent ground truth for those decision points; it explicitly concedes that inverse-reasoning explanations 'lack objective ground truth'. The reported 89.3% decision-point identification and 91.2% confidence-calibration therefore measure how well the model's introspection matches the same self-generated D, not whether inverse reasoning explains anything beyond its own inputs. The causal claim that inverse reasoning 'improves interpretability' is thus supported by a metric that is self-referential by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central interpretability claim rests on introspection-accuracy numbers that reduce to the model's own attention/gradient extraction. Because no external ground-truth reasoning trace exists (the paper's own Limitations section concedes this), the decision-point and confidence-calibration scores cannot independently validate the inverse-reasoning mechanism. Separately, the benchmark accuracies are internally inconsistent: the abstract and Table 2 report 74.6% AQUA-RAT while Table 5 and the supplement report 87.3% for the same full model, and the text below Table 2 claims a +5.2% gain over Claude-3.5-Sonnet although the table shows SAGE-nano 7.5 points below Claude-3.5-Sonnet. Those are correctness/reproducibility defects rather than circularity per se, but they remove any independent empirical anchor that could break the self-referential loop. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found; the paper's citations to 'attention is not explanation' are acknowledged but not resolved. Because at least one headline 'prediction' (introspection accuracy) is defined in terms of the method's own outputs, the paper is partially circular, scored 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims depend on a number of hand-set parameters and unvalidated architectural assumptions. Most importantly, the entire method assumes attention-based signals faithfully reflect reasoning, an assumption the paper itself cites as questionable.

free parameters (4)
  • λ1 (explanation loss weight) = not reported
    In the meta-learning objective (Eq. 8), λ1 weights the explanation loss; its value is not specified and would need tuning.
  • λ2 (consistency loss weight) = not reported
    In the meta-learning objective (Eq. 8), λ2 weights the consistency loss; its value is not specified and would need tuning.
  • Decision point threshold = 0.3
    In Algorithm S1, threshold=0.3 determines which decision points are extracted; this appears chosen without justification.
  • α (adaptive normalization strength) = 0.1
    In Eq. S1, α controls adaptive layer normalization strength; it is set as a hyperparameter without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Attention weights and gradient magnitudes are informative about the model's reasoning decisions
    Used throughout Section 3.3 and Algorithm S1; contradicted by cited work such as Jain and Wallace (2019).
  • ad hoc to paper Decision points can be extracted from hidden states and attention at a fixed threshold
    Algorithm S1 uses threshold=0.3 without theoretical grounding.
  • ad hoc to paper Consistency score above 0.8 implies explanation fidelity
    Algorithm S1 line 8 sets a threshold that is not derived from any principle.
invented entities (2)
  • Concept embeddings
    purpose: Used in the enhanced attention mechanism (Eq. 12) to operate at concept level
    Learnable parameters introduced for the model; no external validation or analysis is provided.
  • Meta-cognitive head
    purpose: Generates explanations and confidence scores for the inverse reasoning pipeline
    Architectural component with no independent evidence of effectiveness beyond the paper's internal ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano's Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UKFOKAYV

@misc{pith2026250700092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano's Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UKFOKAYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00092}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities at solving complex reasoning tasks with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, but their decision-making processes remain somewhat blackbox. We introduce textbfinverse reasoning, a novel paradigm enabling LLMs to decompose and explain their own reasoning chains post-hoc. Our approach, used in SAGE-nano, a 4-billion-parameter reasoning model, employs a metacognitive structure that reflects back via attention processes to identify major decision points and generate explanations of reasoning choices. While typical CoT approaches are directed towards forward reasoning generation, inverse reasoning provides insight into why specific reasoning chains were selected over others. Through thorough testing of logical reasoning puzzles, math problems and ethical dilemmas from AQUA-RAT, CommonsenseQA, and customized benchmarks, we demonstrate that SAGE-nano is at the cutting edge both on reasoning accuracy (74.6% on AQUA-RAT) and explanation quality (92.1% human preference score) for its task, and offers performance almost on par with models like Claude-3.5 Sonnet or GPT-4o. Our contributions are: (i) the first rigorous framework for LLM self-reflection via inverse reasoning, (ii) a novel metalearning framework to reverse the attention flow, (iii) comprehensive evaluation frameworks for reasoning transparency, and (iv) evidence that increasing reasoning using inverse reasoning improves interpretability along with reasoning performance. Our work creates new avenues for transparent AI systems and closes significant gaps in AI safety, education, and scientific discovery.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tracing the thoughts of a large language model

    Anthropic. Tracing the thoughts of a large language model . 2025. URL https://www. anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language-model

    2025

  2. [2]

    Costa and others

    A. Costa and others. Meta-Models: An Architecture for Decoding LLM Behaviors Through Inter- preted Embeddings and Natural Language. 2024. eprint: 2410.02472, archivePrefix: arXiv. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02472

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Brinkmann and others

    J. Brinkmann and others. A Mechanistic Analysis of a Transformer Trained on a Symbolic Multi- Step Reasoning Task. 2024. eprint: 2402.11917, archivePrefix: arXiv. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.11917

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron and others. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. 11 Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano’s Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    N. Nanda. Mechanistic Interpretability Glossary. 2024. URL https://www.neelnanda.io/ mechanistic-interpretability/glossary

    2024

  6. [6]

    Singh and others

    A. Singh and others. CommonsenseQA 2.0: Explanations? That’s What I Need!. EMNLP, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Brown and others

    T. Brown and others. Language models are few-shot learners . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  8. [8]

    E. M. Bender and others. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too large?. FAccT, 2021

    2021

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Jain and B

    S. Jain and B. C. Wallace. Attention is not explanation. NAACL, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Elhage and others

    N. Elhage and others. A mathematical framework for transformer circuits. 2021. URL https: //transformer-circuits.pub/2021/framework/index.html

    2021

  3. [11]

    Lightman and others

    H. Lightman and others. Let’s verify step by step. 2023. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=v8L0pN6EOi

    2023

  4. [12]

    Singh and others

    C. Singh and others. Augmenting interpretable models with large language models during training. Nature Communications, 2023. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41467-023-43713-1

    2023

  5. [13]

    Meng and others

    K. Meng and others. Locating and editing factual associations in GPT. 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    J. Vig. A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. ACL, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei and others. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works

    Anna Rogers and others. A primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT works. Trans- actions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:842–866, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    What does BERT look at? An analysis of BERT’s attention

    Kevin Clark and others. What does BERT look at? An analysis of BERT’s attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04341, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima and others. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    2022

  11. [20]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models

    Shunyu Yao and others. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

    2023

  12. [21]

    Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and trans- late

    Dzmitry Bahdanau and others. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and trans- late. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani and others. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  14. [23]

    Attention is not not explanation

    Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. Attention is not not explanation . arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.04626, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Zoom in: An introduction to circuits

    Chris Olah and others. Zoom in: An introduction to circuits. Distill, 5(3):e00024–001, 2020

    2020

  16. [25]

    Network dissection: Quantifying interpretability of deep visual represen- tations

    David Bau and others. Network dissection: Quantifying interpretability of deep visual represen- tations. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 6541–6549, 2017. 12 Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano’s Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aw...

    2017

  17. [26]

    Causal mediation analysis for interpreting neural nlp: The case of gender bias

    Jesse Vig and others. Causal mediation analysis for interpreting neural nlp: The case of gender bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12265, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Building machines that learn and think like people

    Brenden M Lake and others. Building machines that learn and think like people . Behavioral and brain sciences, 40:e253, 2017

    2017

  19. [28]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks

    Chelsea Finn and others. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks . International conference on machine learning, pages 1126–1135, 2017

    2017

  20. [29]

    Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry

    John H Flavell. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10):906, 1979

    1979

  21. [30]

    A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning

    Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning . International conference on machine learning , pages 1050–1059, 2016

    2016

  23. [32]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn and others. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems

    Wang Ling and others. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 158–167, 2017

    2017

  25. [34]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe and others. Training verifiers to solve math word problems . arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks and others. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  27. [36]

    LogiQA: A challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning

    Jian Liu and others. LogiQA: A challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08124, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  28. [37]

    ReClor: A reading comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning

    Weihao Yu and others. ReClor: A reading comprehension dataset requiring logical reasoning . arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.04326, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  29. [38]

    ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive state- ments over natural language

    Oyvind Tafjord and others. ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive state- ments over natural language. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13048, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  30. [39]

    CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting common- sense knowledge

    Alon Talmor and others. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting common- sense knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00937, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies

    Mor Geva and others. Did aristotle use a laptop? a question answering benchmark with implicit reasoning strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 9:346–361, 2021

    2021

  32. [41]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge

    Peter Clark and others. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Aligning AI with shared human values

    Dan Hendrycks and others. Aligning AI with shared human values . arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.02275, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Moral stories: Situated reasoning about norms, intents, actions, and their consequences

    Denis Emelin and others. Moral stories: Situated reasoning about norms, intents, actions, and their consequences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15738, 2020. 13 Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano’s Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models

    2012 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classi- fier

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro and others. Why should i trust you? explaining the predictions of any classi- fier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1135–1144, 2016

    2016

  36. [45]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  37. [46]

    Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models

    Ofir Press and others. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03350, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  38. [47]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao and others. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [48]

    GPT-4 technical report

    OpenAI. GPT-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Claude 3 model card

    Anthropic. Claude 3 model card. Anthropic Technical Report, 2024

    2024

  41. [50]

    Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways

    Aakanksha Chowdhery and others. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(240):1–113, 2022

    2022

  42. [51]

    Solving math word problems via cooperative reasoning induced language models

    Xinyu Zhang and others. Solving math word problems via cooperative reasoning induced language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16257, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language mod- els

    Xuezhi Wang and others. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models

    Denny Zhou and others. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models

    Chuanyang Zheng and others. Progressive-hint prompting improves reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09797, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback

    Aman Madaan and others. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Tree of clarifications: Answering ambiguous questions with retrieval- augmented large language models

    Gangwoo Kim and others. Tree of clarifications: Answering ambiguous questions with retrieval- augmented large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14696, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models

    Shehzaad Dhuliawala and others. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in large lan- guage models

    Yao Yao and others. Beyond chain-of-thought, effective graph-of-thought reasoning in large lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16582, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models

    Maciej Besta and others. Graph of thoughts: Solving elaborate problems with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09687, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Large language model guided tree-of-thought

    Jieyi Long. Large language model guided tree-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08291, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Reasoning with language model is planning with world model

    Shibo Hao and others. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model . arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14992, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models

    Zhuosheng Zhang and others. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning

    Yao Fu and others. Complexity-based prompting for multi-step reasoning . arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00720, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning

    Qing Lyu and others. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13379, 2023. 14 Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano’s Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models

    2023 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning

    Tamera Lanham and others. Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13702, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Language models don’t always say what they think: unfaithful explana- tions in chain-of-thought prompting

    Miles Turpin and others. Language models don’t always say what they think: unfaithful explana- tions in chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04388, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought

    Abulhair Saparov and He He. Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01240, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from rea- soning for numerical reasoning tasks

    Wenhu Chen and others. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from rea- soning for numerical reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12588, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  60. [69]

    PAL: Program-aided language models

    Luyu Gao and others. PAL: Program-aided language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10435, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with lan- guage models

    Maxwell Nye and others. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with lan- guage models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Larger language models do in-context learning differently

    Jerry Wei and others. Larger language models do in-context learning differently . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work?

    Sewon Min and others. Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in-context learning work?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  64. [73]

    An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference

    Sang Michael Xie and others. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02080, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  65. [74]

    In-context learning and induction heads

    Catherine Olsson and others. In-context learning and induction heads . arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11895, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning

    Yasaman Razeghi and others. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Data distributional properties drive emergent in-context learning in transformers

    Stephanie CY Chan and others. Data distributional properties drive emergent in-context learning in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05055, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  68. [77]

    What can transformers learn in-context? a case study of simple function classes

    Shivam Garg and others. What can transformers learn in-context? a case study of simple function classes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01066, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    What learning algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models

    Ekin Akyürek and others. What learning algorithm is in-context learning? investigations with linear models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15661, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent

    Johannes von Oswald and others. Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07677, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Why can gpt learn in-context? language models secretly perform gradient descent as meta-optimizers

    Damai Dai and others. Why can gpt learn in-context? language models secretly perform gradient descent as meta-optimizers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10559, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Meta-learning via language model in-context tuning

    Dushyant Mahajan and others. Meta-learning via language model in-context tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07814, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp

    Omar Khattab and others. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators

    Wenhao Yu and others. Generate rather than retrieve: Large language models are strong context generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10063, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  75. [84]

    When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of para- metric and non-parametric memories

    Alex Mallen and others. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of para- metric and non-parametric memories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511, 2022. 15 Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano’s Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models

    2022 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context

    Freda Shi and others. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00093, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts

    Nelson F Liu and others. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts . arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03172, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    When do pre-training biases propagate to downstream tasks? a case study in text summarization

    Faisal Ladhak Jin and others. When do pre-training biases propagate to downstream tasks? a case study in text summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00070, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Quantifying memorization across neural language models

    Nicholas Carlini and others. Quantifying memorization across neural language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models

    Kushal Tirumala and others. Memorization without overfitting: Analyzing the training dynamics of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10770, 2022. 16 Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano’s Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models We introduce SAGE-nano, a 4B-...

    2022 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Calculation Errors (12.3%): Arithmetic mistakes in intermediate steps

  82. [91]

    Logical Fallacies (8.7%): Invalid logical inferences

  83. [92]

    Context Misunderstanding (6.1%): Misinterpretation of problem context

  84. [93]

    Incomplete Reasoning (4.2%): Premature termination of reasoning chain

  85. [94]

    If 3x + 2 = 14, what is x?

    Alternative Path Selection (3.4%): Choosing suboptimal reasoning strategy S1.2.2. S2.2 Human Evaluation Protocol Evaluator Selection: 15 PhD-level researchers in mathematics, computer science, and cognitive psy- chology evaluated explanation quality across four dimensions: Eva...

  86. [95]

    Complex Multi-Step Problems (15% error rate): Problems requiring > 6 reasoning steps show degraded performance due to working memory limitations

  87. [96]

    Ambiguous Problem Statements (22% error rate): When problem context permits multiple valid interpretations, explanation quality decreases

  88. [97]

    In a tournament, each team plays every other team exactly once. If there are 156 games total, how many teams participated?

    Domain-Specific Notation (8% error rate): Specialized mathematical or logical notation occa- sionally causes reasoning pathway confusion Representative Failure Case: Problem: "In a tournament, each team plays every other team exactly once. If there are 156 games total, how man...

  89. [156]

    Explain why you chose method A over method B

    Solving: n2 − n = 312, so n2 − n − 312 = 0. Using quadratic formula... n = 18." Error Analysis: The model correctly identified the combinatorial structure and algebraic ap- proach but made an arithmetic error in the quadratic solution (correct answer: n = 18, but showed uncert...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.