When Chain-of-Thought Fails, the Solution Hides in the Hidden States
On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Whether intermediate reasoning is computationally useful or merely explanatory depends on whether chain-of-thought (CoT) tokens contain task-relevant information. We present a mechanistic causal analysis of CoT on GSM8K using activation patching: transferring token-level hidden states from a CoT generation to a direct-answer run for the same question, then measuring the effect on final-answer accuracy. Across models, generating after patching yields substantially higher accuracy than both direct-answer prompting and the original CoT trace, revealing that individual CoT tokens can encode sufficient information to recover the correct answer, even when the original trace is incorrect. This task-relevant information is more prevalent in correct than incorrect CoT runs and is unevenly distributed across tokens, concentrating in mid-to-late layers and appearing earlier in the reasoning trace. Moreover, patching language tokens such as verbs and entities carry task-solving information that steers generation toward correct reasoning, whereas mathematical tokens encode answer-proximal content that rarely succeeds. Patched outputs are often shorter and yet exceed the accuracy of a full CoT trace, suggesting complete reasoning chains are not always necessary. Together, these findings demonstrate that CoT encodes recoverable, token-level problem-solving information, offering new insight into how reasoning is represented and where it breaks down.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 5 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Apr 2026.
Builds on
5 of 38 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Can Aha Moments Be Fake? Towards Quantifying Decorative and True Thinking in Chain-of-Thought28 Oct
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
Other references · 3
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond the Commitment Boundary: Probing Epiphenomenal Chain-of-Thought in Large Reasoning Models
- 2026Bypassing the Rationale: Causal Auditing of Implicit Reasoning in Language Models
- 2025How does Chain of Thought Think? Mechanistic Interpretability of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Sparse Autoencoding
- 2024Towards Better Chain-of-Thought: A Reflection on Effectiveness and Faithfulness
- 2026When Reasoning Traces Become Performative: Step-Level Evidence that Chain-of-Thought Is an Imperfect Oversight Channel
- 2026</think> Doesn't Stop Reasoning: Analysis of Spurious CoT Termination
- 2026The Potential of CoT for Reasoning: A Closer Look at Trace Dynamics
- 2026Faithfulness as Information Flow: Evaluating and Training Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning