# Explaining Too Much? Understanding How Large Language Model Reasoning Traces Influence Performance and Metacognition

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.25856 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25856/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 3 of its 61 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16419/) (2025)
- [Understanding, Protecting, and Augmenting Human Cognition with Generative AI: A Synthesis of the CHI 2025 Tools for Thought Workshop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.21036/) (2025)
- [Metacognition and Confidence Dynamics in Advice Taking from Generative AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.26508/) (2025)

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

- [Beyond "ChatGPT Can Make Mistakes": Designing Interventions to Support Metacognitive Monitoring in AI-Assisted Work](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17065/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model interfaces are increasingly verbose, exposing intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers. Traces are framed as transparency mechanisms, yet it is unclear how people use them to solve problems. We report a preregistered between-subjects study (N = 559) in which participants solved ten LSAT-style reasoning problems under one of three conditions: an Answer-only baseline, a Full-trace revealed before the answer, and a Summary-trace presented alongside the answer. Summaries preserved task performance at the no-trace baseline while significantly elevating trust and hedonic appeal, establishing that trace exposure shifts subjective appraisal of the interaction without bringing performance benefits. Under an open-weight reasoning model exposing verbose intermediate output, full traces additionally impaired performance relative to the answer-only baseline. Across all conditions, participants substantially overestimated their performance, and no trace format supported calibrated self-evaluation. Further analysis indicates that hedonic appeal, not trust, carries the indirect path to overestimation, consistent with a processing-fluency account. Reasoning traces are best understood as user-facing interface artifacts rather than transparent windows into model cognition, and calibration is unlikely to emerge from the traces themselves and may best be scaffolded by interactions that elicit users' own reasoning first.