# Token Signature: Predicting Chain-of-Thought Gains with Token Decoding Feature in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06008 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06008/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 43 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 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, 30 of 43)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.11641/) (2019)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14219/) (2024)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06769/) (2024)
- [Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02235/) (2021)
- [AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06364/) (2023)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Automatic Chain of Thought Prompting in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03493/) (2022)
- [Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.15097/) (2022)
- [How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04751/) (2023)
- [Solving General Arithmetic Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.01413/) (2016)
- [Trusting Your Evidence: Hallucinate Less with Context-aware Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14739/) (2023)
- [To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12183/) (2024)
- [Chain of Thought Empowers Transformers to Solve Inherently Serial Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12875/) (2024)
- [FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00840/) (2022)
- [Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10702/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10001/) (2022)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Without Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10200/) (2024)
- [MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16049/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [The Stepwise Informativeness Assumption: Why are Entropy Dynamics and Reasoning Correlated in LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06192/) (2026)
- [Can Confidence Estimates Decide When Chain-of-Thought Is Necessary for LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21007/) (2025)
- [When Do LLMs Reason? A Dynamical Systems View via Entropy Phase Transitions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22873/) (2026)
- [SKIP: a Self-knowledge-guided Step-wise Preference Learning Framework for Concise Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17019/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique has proven effective in improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks. However, the performance gains are inconsistent across different tasks, and the underlying mechanism remains a long-standing research question. In this work, we make a preliminary observation that the monotonicity of token probability distributions may be correlated with the gains achieved through CoT reasoning. Leveraging this insight, we propose two indicators based on the token probability distribution to assess CoT effectiveness across different tasks. By combining instance-level indicators with logistic regression model, we introduce Dynamic CoT, a method that dynamically select between CoT and direct answer. Furthermore, we extend Dynamic CoT to closed-source models by transferring decision strategies learned from open-source models. Our indicators for assessing CoT effectiveness achieve an accuracy of 89.2%, and Dynamic CoT reduces token consumption by more than 35% while maintaining high accuracy. Overall, our work offers a novel perspective on the underlying mechanisms of CoT reasoning and provides a framework for its more efficient deployment.