mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Does Chain-of-Thought Contribute at Probe Time? Evidence for Local Co-Occurrence Activation

arXiv 2605.26795 ↗First posted 26 May 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enhances large language model performance, yet what drives these gains remains unclear. We study this question from a probe-time perspective: holding CoT rationales fixed, we test which textual properties matter for the final prediction. Across multiple datasets and model configurations, we find that randomizing the order of rationale sentences has little effect on accuracy, suggesting that the global order of reasoning steps is not the main source of the probe-time benefit. Moreover, even when the words in a rationale are randomly reordered, performance remains well above the no-rationale baseline, indicating that the rationale's words remain useful even without their original order. Restoring only short-range word order further improves performance and brings it substantially closer to full CoT. In most settings, much of this local-order gain is already obtained with three-word windows. Control experiments rule out explicit answer copying, simple lexical cues, generic topical context, and general robustness to shuffling as the main explanations. Mechanistic analyses further show that short-window gains are largely formed in early-to-middle model layers, with answer-relevant evidence concentrated in local text spans. Together, these findings support a local co-occurrence activation (LCA) interpretation: the probe-time benefit of fixed rationales arises mainly from the words they contain and short-range word co-occurrences.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 12 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.

Builds on

12 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 8

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity31 Oct
  2. 2025FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning5 Oct
  3. 2025Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful11 Mar
  4. 2024On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models15 Jun
  5. 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models24 Apr
  6. 2023Towards Better Chain-of-Thought Prompting Strategies: A Survey8 Oct
  7. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
  8. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models21 Mar

Other references · 4

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 930
  3. 2021Show Your Work: Scratchpads for Intermediate Computation with Language Modelscited by 871
  4. 2024BadChain: Backdoor Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Large Language Modelscited by 74

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Chain-of-Thought in Large Language Models: Decoding, Projection, and Activation
  2. 2025Rethinking the Chain-of-Thought: The Roles of In-Context Learning and Pre-trained Priors
  3. 2026When does Chain-of-Thought Help: A Markovian Perspective
  4. 2024Chain of Thought Still Thinks Fast: APriCoT Helps with Thinking Slow
  5. 2026Does Verbose Chain-of-Thought Really Help? In-Distribution Evidence that Content, Not Length, Matters
  6. 2025How Chain-of-Thought Works? Tracing Information Flow from Decoding, Projection, and Activation
  7. 2025Don't Take Things Out of Context: Attention Intervention for Enhancing Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models
  8. 2024Chain-of-Probe: Examining the Necessity and Accuracy of CoT Step-by-Step