This work introduces a framework for automatic annotation of reasoning steps through the lens of Bloom's Taxonomy, which classifies thinking into six cognitive levels, such as Remembering, Applying and Evaluating, and demonstrates that thinking-type information derived from reasoning traces correlates with correctness, paving the way for improved reasoning.
Abstract
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have revolutionized reasoning in LLMs, and the increasing public availability of reasoning traces creates valuable opportunities to study model behavior not only at the surface level but also at the granularity of individual reasoning steps. However, understanding the types of thinking employed during reasoning - which offers critical insights into models'reasoning patterns and enables actionable applications - remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a framework for automatic annotation of reasoning steps through the lens of Bloom's Taxonomy, which classifies thinking into six cognitive levels, such as Remembering, Applying and Evaluating. Using this framework, we perform a large-scale analysis across models and datasets, revealing both similarities and differences in thinking patterns across models and tasks. Moreover, we demonstrate that thinking-type information derived from reasoning traces correlates with correctness, paving the way for improved reasoning. Our findings establish a fine-grained framework for analyzing thinking patterns in LRMs and provide actionable insights for enhancing reasoning quality.
This work presents a theoretical framework that reveals how reasoning steps can amplify error through three failure modes: incorrect sub-task decomposition, incorrect sub-task solving, and incorrect final answer summarization, and introduces structured interventions that adapt CoT generation according to the identified...
Haibo Jin, Peiyan Zhang, Man Luo et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 1 citation
This work isolates abductive reasoning from deductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort.
Results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.
ThinkRetrieve is proposed, a test-time scaling framework that augments the reasoning traces of LRMs with dynamically retrieved solved examples at each reasoning step, providing the model with guidance on how to reason rather than merely what facts are relevant.
It is found 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.
Jean de Dieu Nyandwi, Leena Mathur, Yonatan Bisk et al.· 1 citation
EvoThink is proposed, a framework that reduces redundant verification and encourages the exploration of new reasoning paths that not only substantially reduces inference-time token usage but also improves the reasoning capability of LRMs.
Xinbang Dai, Zheyu Xin, Hui-Kang Hu et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.