# Short-Path Prompting in LLMs: Analyzing Reasoning Instability and Solutions for Robust Performance

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09586 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09586/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.10625/) (2022)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10001/) (2022)
- [A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmetic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.00332/) (2024)
- [Chain of Preference Optimization: Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09136/) (2024)
- [Functional Benchmarks for Robust Evaluation of Reasoning Performance, and the Reasoning Gap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.19450/) (2024)
- [Fine-Tuning on Diverse Reasoning Chains Drives Within-Inference CoT Refinement in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03181/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent years have witnessed significant progress in large language models' (LLMs) reasoning, which is largely due to the chain-of-thought (CoT) approaches, allowing models to generate intermediate reasoning steps before reaching the final answer. Building on these advances, state-of-the-art LLMs are instruction-tuned to provide long and detailed CoT pathways when responding to reasoning-related questions. However, human beings are naturally cognitive misers and will prompt language models to give rather short responses, thus raising a significant conflict with CoT reasoning. In this paper, we delve into how LLMs' reasoning performance changes when users provide short-path prompts. The results and analysis reveal that language models can reason effectively and robustly without explicit CoT prompts, while under short-path prompting, LLMs' reasoning ability drops significantly and becomes unstable, even on grade-school problems. To address this issue, we propose two approaches: an instruction-guided approach and a fine-tuning approach, both designed to effectively manage the conflict. Experimental results show that both methods achieve high accuracy, providing insights into the trade-off between instruction adherence and reasoning accuracy in current models.