Failed Reasoning Traces Tell You What Is Fixable (But Not by Reading Them)
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
When post-trained language models fail on reasoning problems, the common test-time-scaling response is to spend more compute on additional attempts, and the failed traces play no further role. We argue this discards a crucial signal; some failures come from unlucky sampling, where more rollouts help, while others are structural and resist resampling regardless of budget. We propose that failed traces encode recoverability structure: the inference-time signature of which test-time interventions can rescue a given failure. Three problem-level trajectory features, derived from the structure of available interventions, recover this structure from the distributional signature of failed rollouts, not their text. They cluster failures into stable regimes, characterize the failure topography of different post-training methods (84.3±4.3% accuracy, +20% over a majority-class baseline), and support a training-free routing rule that lifts rescue by +12.2% on the deployment-relevant Steerable-Hard subset (failures where retry is insufficient and a bounded intervention is reachable). The features and the routing rule transfer across two cross-family probes. The same three features thus convert failed traces from discarded data into a diagnostic object, supporting test-time routing and post-training analysis without training-time or weight-space access.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 16 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2026.
Builds on
16 of 24 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Temporal Sampling for Forgotten Reasoning in LLMs26 May
- 2025s1: Simple test-time scaling31 Jan
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters6 Aug
Other references · 13
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2025SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-trainingcited by 672
- 2024CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Executioncited by 300
- 2026Self-Distillation Enables Continual Learningcited by 247
- 2025RL's Razor: Why Online Reinforcement Learning Forgets Lesscited by 176
- 2024Tuning Language Models by Proxycited by 89
- 2024Calibrating Language Models with Adaptive Temperature Scalingcited by 58
- 2025The Path Not Taken: RLVR Provably Learns Off the Principalscited by 56
- 2026Embarrassingly Simple Self-Distillation Improves Code Generationcited by 40
1 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026The Shape of Overthinking: Backtracking Bursts in Long Reasoning Traces
- 2026How Language Models Fail: Token-Level Signatures of Committed and Persistent Reasoning Failures
- 2026Dissecting Failure Dynamics in Large Language Model Reasoning
- 2026Beyond Imitation: Auditing the Recoverability of Reasoning in Distilled Models
- 2026Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time
- 2026"I May Not Have Articulated Myself Clearly": Diagnosing Dynamic Instability in LLM Reasoning at Inference Time
- 2026Can Language Models Learn to Reject Their Own Bad Reasoning Steps?
- 2026The Knowing-Saying Gap: When Probes See Errors that Confidence Misses