Legibility is Not Interpretability: Comparing Judged and Actual Importance in Chain-Of-Thought Reasoning
Reasoning traces from chain-of-thought models appear to offer a legible window into how a model arrives at its answer. A growing body of work treats them as such, using LLM judges to diagnose errors, evaluate faithfulness, and provide step-level supervision via process reward models and generative critics. These practices rely on the text of a reasoning step carrying information about its functional role. But does the text actually encode information about which reasoning steps matter? We operationalize the importance of a reasoning step as its advantage: the change in expected reward, e.g., producing the correct final answer, from including that step, estimated via Monte Carlo rollouts. ...
| Authors | Kevin Du, Alexander Hoyle, Laura Ruis et al. |
|---|---|
| Primary category | cs.CL |
| Published | 3 September 2026 |
| Last updated at source | 3 September 2026 |
Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.