The Illusion of Insight in Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00514v1
• Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:12:13 GMT
• Title: The Illusion of Insight in Reasoning Models
• Authors: Liv G. d'Aliberti, Manoel Horta Ribeiro,
• Abstract summary: We study mid-reasoning shifts and instrument training runs to detect them.<n>We find that reasoning shifts are rare, do not become more frequent with training, and seldom improve accuracy.<n>Our results show that mid-reasoning shifts are symptoms of unstable inference behavior rather than an intrinsic mechanism for self-correction.
• Score: 1.160208922584163
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Do reasoning models have "Aha!" moments? Prior work suggests that models like DeepSeek-R1-Zero undergo sudden mid-trace realizations that lead to accurate outputs, implying an intrinsic capacity for self-correction. Yet, it remains unclear whether such intrinsic shifts in reasoning strategy actually improve performance. Here, we study mid-reasoning shifts and instrument training runs to detect them. Our analysis spans 1M+ reasoning traces, hundreds of training checkpoints, three reasoning domains, and multiple decoding temperatures and model architectures. We find that reasoning shifts are rare, do not become more frequent with training, and seldom improve accuracy, indicating that they do not correspond to prior perceptions of model insight. However, their effect varies with model uncertainty. Building on this finding, we show that artificially triggering extrinsic shifts under high entropy reliably improves accuracy. Our results show that mid-reasoning shifts are symptoms of unstable inference behavior rather than an intrinsic mechanism for self-correction.

Related papers

• To Think or Not To Think, That is The Question for Large Reasoning Models in Theory of Mind Tasks [56.11584171938381]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) assesses whether models can infer hidden mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.<n>Recent progress in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has boosted step-by-step inference in mathematics and coding.<n>We present a systematic study of nine advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) comparing reasoning models with non-reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:16:13Z)
• EpiCaR: Knowing What You Don't Know Matters for Better Reasoning in LLMs [9.412828452977553]
  Existing approaches reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost.<n>This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment.<n>We proposeEpiCaR as a training objective that jointly optimize reasoning performance and calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T06:21:13Z)
• Addressing Overthinking in Large Vision-Language Models via Gated Perception-Reasoning Optimization [56.59356959631999]
  Gated Perception-Reasoning Optimization (GPRO) is a meta-reasoning controller that dynamically routes computation among three decision paths.<n>GPRO substantially improves both accuracy and efficiency, outperforming recent slow-thinking methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T23:05:17Z)
• Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know? [7.423494663010787]
  Reasoning language models have set state-of-the-art (SOTA) records on many challenging benchmarks.<n>Like previous language models, reasoning models are prone to generating confident, plausible responses that are incorrect.<n>Knowing when and how much to trust these models is critical to the safe deployment of reasoning models in real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T21:46:42Z)
• From Emergence to Control: Probing and Modulating Self-Reflection in Language Models [23.176641726866105]
  Self-reflection is a powerful behavior enabled by reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards.<n>We show that self-reflection is not exclusive to fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T20:40:13Z)
• Rationales Are Not Silver Bullets: Measuring the Impact of Rationales on Model Performance and Reliability [70.4107059502882]
  Training language models with rationales augmentation has been shown to be beneficial in many existing works.<n>We conduct comprehensive investigations to thoroughly inspect the impact of rationales on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T02:39:37Z)
• Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidence [43.29929311958733]
  Large language models (LLMs) often fail to communicate their confidence accurately.<n>We demonstrate that reasoning models that engage in extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit superior performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T15:19:00Z)
• SEAL: Steerable Reasoning Calibration of Large Language Models for Free [58.931194824519935]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated compelling capabilities for complex reasoning tasks via the extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning mechanism.<n>Recent studies reveal substantial redundancy in the CoT reasoning traces, which negatively impacts model performance.<n>We introduce SEAL, a training-free approach that seamlessly calibrates the CoT process, improving accuracy while demonstrating significant efficiency gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T02:42:07Z)
• Cognitive Behaviors that Enable Self-Improving Reasoners, or, Four Habits of Highly Effective STaRs [28.565225092457897]
  Reinforcement learning can drive self-improvement in language models on verifiable tasks.<n>We find that Qwen-2.5-3B far exceeds Llama-3.2-3B under identical RL training for the game of Countdown.<n>Our study reveals that Qwen naturally exhibits these reasoning behaviors, whereas Llama initially lacks them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T08:46:22Z)
• Selective Learning: Towards Robust Calibration with Dynamic Regularization [79.92633587914659]
  Miscalibration in deep learning refers to there is a discrepancy between the predicted confidence and performance. We introduce Dynamic Regularization (DReg) which aims to learn what should be learned during training thereby circumventing the confidence adjusting trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T11:25:20Z)
• VisFIS: Visual Feature Importance Supervision with Right-for-the-Right-Reason Objectives [84.48039784446166]
  We show that model FI supervision can meaningfully improve VQA model accuracy as well as performance on several Right-for-the-Right-Reason metrics. Our best performing method, Visual Feature Importance Supervision (VisFIS), outperforms strong baselines on benchmark VQA datasets. Predictions are more accurate when explanations are plausible and faithful, and not when they are plausible but not faithful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-22T17:02:01Z)

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.