# Base Models Can Reason By Taking a Cue From Training Data

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.06851 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06851/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 13 of its 67 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.05858/) (2019)
- [Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03296/) (2023)
- [Olmo 3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.13961/) (2025)
- [OctoThinker: Mid-training Incentivizes Reinforcement Learning Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20512/) (2025)
- [The Truth Lies Somewhere in the Middle (of the Generated Tokens)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09969/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this paper, we study how training data creates associations between the tokens at the start of a base model's response and the reasoning behavior that follows. First, we demonstrate that fixing particular starting token cues makes a base model's performance competitive with that of its reinforcement learning (RL)-trained counterparts on math and coding. For instance, the cue ".nnOkay" raises Olmo-3-7B's MATH-500 pass@1 accuracy from 42% to 78%, while "Alright," raises Qwen3-14B's from 72% to 87%. Second, RL makes these cues more likely, while fixing them recovers much of its performance gain over the base model. Third, we trace the reasoning effects of token cues to the training data. We perform causal data interventions to turn an arbitrary word, such as "chicken", into an effective reasoning cue, or remove an existing cue's effect. A similar edit makes the prompt instruction "Think duck duck goose" as effective as "Think step by step" at eliciting reasoning. We also find that the hidden state representations induced by different cues correlate with different document types from the training set. Finally, we extend our study of token cues with a case study in language model safety, finding that different cues elicit distinct refusal and compliance behaviors that correspond to different types of training data.