An Empirical Study of Reasoning Steps in Thinking Code LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05874v1
• Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2025 06:18:48 GMT
• Title: An Empirical Study of Reasoning Steps in Thinking Code LLMs
• Authors: Haoran Xue, Gias Uddin, Song Wang,
• Abstract summary: Thinking Large Language Models generate explicit intermediate reasoning traces before final answers.<n>This study examines the reasoning process and quality of thinking LLMs for code generation.
• Score: 8.653365851909745
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) generate explicit intermediate reasoning traces before final answers, potentially improving transparency, interpretability, and solution accuracy for code generation. However, the quality of these reasoning chains remains underexplored. We present a comprehensive empirical study examining the reasoning process and quality of thinking LLMs for code generation. We evaluate six state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs (DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet-Thinking, Gemini-2.0-Flash-Thinking, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and Qwen-QwQ) across 100 code generation tasks of varying difficulty from BigCodeBench. We quantify reasoning-chain structure through step counts and verbosity, conduct controlled step-budget adjustments, and perform a 21-participant human evaluation across three dimensions: efficiency, logical correctness, and completeness. Our step-count interventions reveal that targeted step increases can improve resolution rates for certain models/tasks, while modest reductions often preserve success on standard tasks, rarely on hard ones. Through systematic analysis, we develop a reasoning-problematic taxonomy, identifying completeness as the dominant failure mode. Task complexity significantly impacts reasoning quality; hard problems are substantially more prone to incompleteness than standard tasks. Our stability analysis demonstrates that thinking LLMs maintain consistent logical structures across computational effort levels and can self-correct previous errors. This study provides new insights into the strengths and limitations of current thinking LLMs in software engineering.

Related papers

• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• Executable Counterfactuals: Improving LLMs' Causal Reasoning Through Code [29.382261465478248]
  We introduce executable counterfactuals, a framework that operationalizes causal reasoning through code and math problems.<n>Our results reveal substantial drop in accuracy (25-40%) from interventional to counterfactual reasoning for SOTA models like o4-mini and Claude-4-Sonnet.<n>We also test whether a model trained on code would generalize to counterfactual math word problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T00:26:35Z)
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [16.266145641151375]
  Large Reasoning Models generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers.<n>We show that LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities.<n>We also investigate the reasoning traces in more depth, studying the patterns of explored solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T22:42:29Z)
• Computational Thinking Reasoning in Large Language Models [69.28428524878885]
  Computational Thinking Model (CTM) is a novel framework that incorporates computational thinking paradigms into large language models (LLMs)<n>Live code execution is seamlessly integrated into the reasoning process, allowing CTM to think by computing.<n>CTM outperforms conventional reasoning models and tool-augmented baselines in terms of accuracy, interpretability, and generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:11:15Z)
• Truly Assessing Fluid Intelligence of Large Language Models through Dynamic Reasoning Evaluation [106.17986469245302]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capacities that mirror human-like thinking.<n>Existing reasoning benchmarks either focus on domain-specific knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or lack interpretability.<n>We propose DRE-Bench, a dynamic reasoning evaluation benchmark grounded in a hierarchical cognitive framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:01:08Z)
• A Survey of Slow Thinking-based Reasoning LLMs using Reinforced Learning and Inference-time Scaling Law [29.763080554625216]
  This survey explores recent advancements in reasoning large language models (LLMs) designed to mimic "slow thinking"<n>LLMs focus on scaling computational resources dynamically during complex tasks, such as math reasoning, visual reasoning, medical diagnosis, and multi-agent debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-05T14:14:59Z)
• How to Get Your LLM to Generate Challenging Problems for Evaluation [33.625052642068624]
  CHASE is a unified framework to synthetically generate challenging problems using Large Language Models.<n>We implement CHASE to create evaluation benchmarks across three diverse domains.<n>The performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on these synthetic benchmarks lies in the range of 40-60% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T16:09:55Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
  We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets. We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
• Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
  In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training. We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion. The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.