# Not Just the Destination, But the Journey: Reasoning Traces Causally Shape Generalization Behaviors

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12397 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.12397/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 18 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Mar 2026.

## 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, 18 of 18)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21509/) (2025)
- [Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11473/) (2025)
- [Model Organisms for Emergent Misalignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11613/) (2025)
- [When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05246/) (2025)
- [Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19823/) (2025)
- [Convergent Linear Representations of Emergent Misalignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11618/) (2025)
- [Thought Crime: Backdoors and Emergent Misalignment in Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13206/) (2025)
- [Steering Out-of-Distribution Generalization with Concept Ablation Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.16795/) (2025)
- [Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01926/) (2025)
- [Mitigating Deceptive Alignment via Self-Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18807/) (2025)
- [DeceptionBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for AI Deception Behaviors in Real-world Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15501/) (2025)
- [In-Training Defenses against Emergent Misalignment in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06249/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [The Cognitive Penalty: Ablating System 1 and System 2 Reasoning in Edge-Native SLMs for Decentralized Consensus](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16913/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is often viewed as a window into LLM decision-making, yet recent work suggests it may function merely as post-hoc rationalization. This raises a critical alignment question: Does the reasoning trace causally shape model generalization independent of the final answer? To isolate reasoning's causal effect, we design a controlled experiment holding final harmful answers constant while varying reasoning paths. We construct datasets with textitEvil reasoning embracing malice, textitMisleading reasoning rationalizing harm, and textitSubmissive reasoning yielding to pressure. We train models (0.6B--14B parameters) under multiple paradigms, including question-thinking-answer (QTA), question-thinking (QT), and thinking-only (T-only), and evaluate them in both think and no-think modes. We find that: (1) CoT training could amplify harmful generalization more than standard fine-tuning; (2) distinct reasoning types induce distinct behavioral patterns aligned with their semantics, despite identical final answers; (3) training on reasoning without answer supervision (QT or T-only) is sufficient to alter behavior, proving reasoning carries an independent signal; and (4) these effects persist even when generating answers without reasoning, indicating deep internalization. Our findings demonstrate that reasoning content is causally potent, challenging alignment strategies that supervise only outputs.