# Amplified Does Not Mean Predictive: Reasoning Behaviors in Thinking Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13760 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13760/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers 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 27 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16502/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02255/) (2023)
- [Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12599/) (2025)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Cognitive Behaviors that Enable Self-Improving Reasoners, or, Four Habits of Highly Effective STaRs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01307/) (2025)
- [Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.03373/) (2025)
- [ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06559/) (2024)
- [Training Language Models to Reason Efficiently](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04463/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Can Be Effective Without Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09858/) (2025)
- [Thoughts Are All Over the Place: On the Underthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18585/) (2025)
- [Why Does Self-Distillation (Sometimes) Degrade the Reasoning Capability of LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.24472/) (2026)
- [LogiQA: A Challenge Dataset for Machine Reading Comprehension with Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08124/) (2020)
- [On the Interplay of Pre-Training, Mid-Training, and RL on Reasoning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.07783/) (2025)
- [ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20270/) (2025)
- [VisualPuzzles: Decoupling Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation from Domain Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10342/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Theater: Disentangling Model Beliefs from Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05488/) (2026)
- [Cognitive Foundations for Reasoning and Their Manifestation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.16660/) (2025)
- [The CoT Encyclopedia: Analyzing, Predicting, and Controlling how a Reasoning Model will Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10185/) (2025)
- [PRISM: A Dual View of LLM Reasoning through Semantic Flow and Latent Computation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22754/) (2026)

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

- [Hallucination Across the Reasoning Lifecycle: Interface Visibility, Causal Evidence, and Release Control in Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05472/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Which reasoning behaviors are associated with correct answers in reasoning models, and does reasoning-oriented training amplify those behaviors? This distinction is important because reasoning-oriented training can make traces look more deliberative without amplifying the behaviors most tied to model correctness. We quantify this mismatch with Behavioral Lift, a metric that measures how much correctness changes when a behavior is present versus absent in a model's reasoning trace. Across 15 models and 6 benchmarks spanning text-only and vision-language reasoning, we annotate 15,282 traces with a taxonomy whose core behaviors are defined for both LLM and VLM traces. We find evidence for an Amplification-Lift Gap, in which thinking models strongly amplify self-correction, hypothesis testing, and uncertainty acknowledgment, while the highest-lift behaviors are confidence calibration, knowledge alignment, and self-awareness. Confidence calibration is among the strongest positive signals of correctness in both modalities, yet is barely amplified; uncertainty acknowledgment is amplified by 3--7×, yet is weakly or negatively associated with correctness. We find that reasoning-oriented training does not preferentially amplify the highest-Lift behaviors, motivating process-level objectives that reward calibrated and grounded reasoning rather than surface form alone.