Rethinking Dense Sequential Chains: Reasoning Language Models Can Extract Answers from Sparse, Order-Shuffling Chain-of-Thoughts
Modern reasoning language models generate dense, sequential chain-of-thought traces implicitly assuming that every token contributes and that steps must be consumed in order. We challenge both assumptions through a systematic intervention pipeline--removal, masking, shuffling, and noise injection--applied to model-generated reasoning chains across three models and three benchmarks. Our findings are counterintuitive on three dimensions. Order: Does the sequential order of a reasoning chain matter for answer extraction? No--line-level shuffling reduces accuracy by less than 0.5 pp; word-level shuffling retains 62%-89% accuracy; only token-level shuffling collapses to near zero. Pretrained-only and instruction-tuned variants exhibit near-identical tolerance (78.67% vs. 78.00% under line shuffling), indicating order-independence originates from pretraining rather than reasoning-specific fine-tuning. Dense: Is all the information in a reasoning chain important for answer extraction? No--masking numeric digits collapses accuracy to exactly 0%, while masking alphabetic prose improves accuracy by 4.7 pp. Robustness: Is a reasoning chain that is both order-shuffling and non-dense still robust? Yes--the most aggressively reduced representation (all natural language removed, lines arbitrarily shuffled) still achieves 83% accuracy, and injecting false answers at 3x true-answer frequency leaves accuracy unchanged (83.3%->83.3%), falsifying a frequency-based extraction account. These results establish that answer extraction operates on a sparse, order-insensitive, and structurally robust informational substrate, opening paths toward parallelized and token-efficient reasoning generation.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
The Sequential Edge: Inverse-Entropy Voting Beats Parallel Self-Consistency at Matched Compute
We revisit test-time scaling for language model reasoning and ask a fundamental question: at equal token budget and compute, is it better to run multiple independent chains in parallel, or to run fewer chains that iterat…
Don't Overthink it. Preferring Shorter Thinking Chains for Improved LLM Reasoning
Reasoning large language models (LLMs) heavily rely on scaling test-time compute to perform complex reasoning tasks by generating extensive "thinking" chains. While demonstrating impressive results, this approach incurs …
Let Me Think! A Long Chain-of-Thought Can Be Worth Exponentially Many Short Ones
Inference-time computation has emerged as a promising scaling axis for improving large language model reasoning. However, despite yielding impressive performance, the optimal allocation of inference-time computation rema…
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelRethinking Offensive Text Detection as a Multi-Hop Reasoning Problem
We introduce the task of implicit offensive text detection in dialogues, where a statement may have either an offensive or non-offensive interpretation, depending on the listener and context. We argue that reasoning is c…
Text DetectionLogicGaze: Benchmarking Causal Consistency in Visual Narratives via Counterfactual Verification
While sequential reasoning enhances the capability of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) to execute complex multimodal tasks, their reliability in grounding these reasoning chains within actual visual evidence remains insuffi…
Multimodal Reasoning