Reasoning that Travels: Dissecting How Chain-of-Thought Transfers Across Models
On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Large reasoning models (LRMs) often generate extensive chain-of-thought (CoT) traces before producing a final answer. As explicit textual artifacts, these traces can be passed to other models to solve the same task, enabling cross-model reasoning transfer. Yet successful transfer alone does not reveal how the provided CoT contributes to another model's answer. We study this question with a controlled provider--receiver framework, where a provider generates a reasoning trace and a receiver solves the same problem from increasingly longer trace prefixes. We compare force-answer, where the receiver answers directly from the prefix, with free-generation, where it may continue reasoning before answering. Across models and benchmarks, full traces often transfer successfully, but prefix trajectories reveal distinct mechanisms. In force-answer mode, AIME transfer is largely driven by explicit answer availability. MMLU-Pro instead reflects a larger role for receiver competence, while ZebraLogic depends on partial structured-answer information rather than complete-answer leakage alone. In free-generation mode, partial CoTs improve performance across benchmarks, indicating that prefixes can guide continued reasoning. Finally, answer agreement among receivers provides a gold-free signal for stopping provider reasoning early. Overall, cross-model CoT transfer is not a single phenomenon: it can reflect answer extraction, reasoning scaffolding, or receiver-dependent competence.
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 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.
Builds on
16 of 33 references.
Closest ancestors · 9
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Models20 Mar
- 2026Evaluating Chain-of-Thought Reasoning through Reusability and Verifiability19 Feb
- 2026Decoupling the Effect of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: A Human Label Variation Perspective6 Jan
- 2025CoT-X: An Adaptive Framework for Cross-Model Chain-of-Thought Transfer and Optimization7 Nov
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
- 2025Thought Anchors: Which LLM Reasoning Steps Matter?23 Jun
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think8 May
- 2025Towards Reasoning Era: A Survey of Long Chain-of-Thought for Reasoning Large Language Models12 Mar
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
Other references · 7
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
- 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,220
- 2025Olmo 3cited by 95
- 2026Do explanations generalize across large reasoning models?cited by 5
- 2026ConfSpec: Efficient Step-Level Speculative Reasoning via Confidence-Gated Verificationcited by 4
- 2026TrigReason: Trigger-Based Collaboration between Small and Large Reasoning Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond the Commitment Boundary: Probing Epiphenomenal Chain-of-Thought in Large Reasoning Models
- 2026When Reasoning Traces Become Performative: Step-Level Evidence that Chain-of-Thought Is an Imperfect Oversight Channel
- 2026Probing the Trajectories of Reasoning Traces in Large Language Models
- 2025Early Stopping Chain-of-thoughts in Large Language Models
- 2026When Chain-of-Thought Fails, the Solution Hides in the Hidden States
- 2026Large Language Models Decide Early and Explain Later
- 2025A Comprehensive Evaluation of Multilingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: Performance, Consistency, and Faithfulness Across Languages
- 2026The Potential of CoT for Reasoning: A Closer Look at Trace Dynamics