# How Well Can Reasoning Models Identify and Recover from Unhelpful Thoughts?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10979 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10979/

## Key facts

- Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 22 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03350/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Training Language Models to Self-Correct via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12917/) (2024)
- [Cognitive Behaviors that Enable Self-Improving Reasoners, or, Four Habits of Highly Effective STaRs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01307/) (2025)
- [Language Models can Solve Computer Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17491/) (2023)
- [Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.03373/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09561/) (2022)
- [Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03188/) (2023)
- [Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09479/) (2023)
- [SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04908/) (2019)
- [A Comparative Study on Reasoning Patterns of OpenAI's o1 Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13639/) (2024)
- [Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00024/) (2023)
- [The Geometry of Self-Verification in a Task-Specific Reasoning Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14379/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04040/) (2025)
- [RAFFLES: Reasoning-based Attribution of Faults for LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.06822/) (2025)
- [Thinking to Recall: How Reasoning Unlocks Parametric Knowledge in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09906/) (2026)
- [PiCSAR: Probabilistic Confidence Selection And Ranking for Reasoning Chains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.21787/) (2025)
- [Probing the Trajectories of Reasoning Traces in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.23163/) (2026)
- [Humans Perceive Wrong Narratives from AI Reasoning Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16599/) (2025)
- [Off-Trajectory Reasoning: Can LLMs Collaborate on Reasoning Trajectory?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06410/) (2025)
- [FACT-E: Causality-Inspired Evaluation for Trustworthy Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10693/) (2026)
- [Indications of Belief-Guided Agency and Meta-Cognitive Monitoring in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02467/) (2026)
- [Detecting Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought via Circuit-Guided Internal-External Discrepancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25603/) (2026)
- [INTENT-AS-A-TOOL Makes it Easy to Track Agentic Misalignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.27348/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent reasoning models show the ability to reflect, backtrack, and self-validate their reasoning, which is crucial in spotting mistakes and arriving at accurate solutions. A natural question that arises is how effectively models can perform such self-reevaluation. We tackle this question by investigating how well reasoning models identify and recover from four types of unhelpful thoughts: uninformative rambling thoughts, thoughts irrelevant to the question, thoughts misdirecting the question as a slightly different question, and thoughts that lead to incorrect answers. We show that models are effective at identifying most unhelpful thoughts but struggle to recover from the same thoughts when these are injected into their thinking process, causing significant performance drops. Models tend to naively continue the line of reasoning of the injected irrelevant thoughts, which showcases that their self-reevaluation abilities are far from a general "meta-cognitive" awareness. Moreover, we observe non/inverse-scaling trends, where larger models struggle more than smaller ones to recover from short irrelevant thoughts, even when instructed to reevaluate their reasoning. We demonstrate the implications of these findings with a jailbreak experiment using irrelevant thought injection, showing that the smallest models are the least distracted by harmful-response-triggering thoughts. Overall, our findings call for improvement in self-reevaluation of reasoning models to develop better reasoning and safer systems.