# Correct Answers, Invalid Traces: What Verifiable Grade-School Math Reveals About Chain-of-Thought Traces

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38107 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.38107/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Mathematical reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 35 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Mathematical reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/mathematical-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 35)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.09864/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [Kimi k1.5: Scaling Reinforcement Learning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12599/) (2025)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10848/) (2023)
- [GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05229/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Think before you speak: Training Language Models With Pause Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02226/) (2023)
- [Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11473/) (2025)
- [Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10001/) (2022)
- [Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15758/) (2024)
- [Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.20311/) (2024)
- [When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05246/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Monitorability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18311/) (2025)
- [Physics of Language Models: Part 2.2, How to Learn From Mistakes on Grade-School Math Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.16293/) (2024)
- [Beyond Semantics: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Reasonless Intermediate Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13775/) (2025)
- [Position: Stop Anthropomorphizing Intermediate Tokens as Reasoning/Thinking Traces!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09762/) (2025)
- [Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01926/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought traces are widely read as records of how models reach their answers, informing debugging, agent auditing, and claims about reasoning. Testing this interpretation is difficult because natural-language thinking traces are rarely mechanically verifiable. We revisit it in iGSM, a synthetic grade-school mathematics benchmark designed to study thinking traces and used to support claims of learned reasoning and planning. Crucially, iGSM exposes the exact quantities and dependencies that a correct solution should use, allowing generated traces to be checked programmatically step by step and enabling us to test whether correct answers are reliably accompanied by valid traces. We first evaluate models trained exclusively on valid, minimal traces. Answer correctness and trace validity nearly coincide in distribution but decouple out of distribution: on the hardest instances, 31.6% of correct answers have invalid traces, over half of which pass all syntactic and arithmetic checks but fail semantic dependency checks. We then intervene on trace supervision. Non-minimal training traces induce non-minimal outputs, while re-asking the same problem with a different query reveals computations inherited from the original query, weakening minimality as evidence of selective planning. Shuffling tokens in 10% of training trace sentences preserves near-clean accuracy even out of distribution despite no trace passing verification. Swapped training traces likewise retain high in-distribution accuracy. We discuss the implications of these findings for chain-of-thought monitoring and interpretation in the context of AI safety.