Directional Reasoning Trajectory Change (DRTC): Identifying Critical Trace Segments in Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15332v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 03:38:16 GMT
• Title: Directional Reasoning Trajectory Change (DRTC): Identifying Critical Trace Segments in Reasoning Models
• Abstract summary: Directional Reasoning Trajectory Change (DRTC) is a process-causal framework for interpreting long-form reasoning from a single on-policy rollout.<n>DRTC detects pivot decision points using uncertainty and distribution-shift signals.<n>It measures whether each intervention redirects the direction of the model's log-probability trajectory.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Understanding how language models carry out long-horizon reasoning remains an open challenge. Existing interpretability methods often highlight tokens or spans correlated with an answer, but they rarely reveal where the model makes consequential reasoning turns, which earlier context causally triggers those turns, or whether the highlighted text actually steers the reasoning process. We introduce Directional Reasoning Trajectory Change (DRTC), a process-causal framework for interpreting long-form reasoning from a single on-policy rollout. DRTC detects pivot decision points using uncertainty and distribution-shift signals, then applies receiver-side interventions that preserve the realized rollout without resampling the continuation while blocking information flow from selected earlier chunks only at a pivot. It measures whether each intervention redirects the direction of the model's log-probability trajectory relative to the realized rollout direction, producing a signed per-chunk attribution score. We also compute turning-angle curvature changes on raw logits as a complementary diagnostic and introduce curvature signatures to summarize shared intervention-response geometry. Empirically, directional influence is sharply concentrated across four reasoning models (per-example |DRTC| shares yield Gini 0.50 to 0.58 and top-5 percent mass 0.23 to 0.28), and learned pivots induce stronger intervention magnitudes than matched random spans. In a scaling study on 500 MATH problems with R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B, learned spans outperform matched random spans (median delta = 0.409, 355 of 500 positive; sign test p = 2.3e-21). Overall, DRTC provides a causally grounded, trajectory-level view of how specific context elements steer reasoning under on-policy dynamics.

Related papers

• ThinkRetrieve: Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning Traces for Test-Time Scaling [60.48279351544583]
  ThinkRetrieve is a test-time scaling framework for large reasoning models.<n>It retrieves relevant exemplars at each intermediate step and injects them directly into the thinking trace.<n>It consistently improves accuracy over standard test-time scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T13:58:07Z)
• More Thinking, More Bias: Length-Driven Position Bias in Reasoning Models [5.705685936981751]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and reasoning-tuned models are commonly assumed to reduce shallow biases by thinking carefully.<n>We test this on position bias in multiple-choice QA and find a different story: within any reasoning-capable model, per-question position bias scales with the length of the reasoning trajectory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T04:14:13Z)
• On the Role of Reasoning Patterns in the Generalization Discrepancy of Long Chain-of-Thought Supervised Fine-Tuning [63.41902113656453]
  Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories has become a pivotal phase in building large reasoning models.<n>We conduct a comparative study using two sources of verified CoT trajectories generated by two competing models.<n>We find that SFT on textttDeepSeek-R1-0528 data achieves remarkably lower training loss, yet exhibits significantly worse generalization performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T07:00:54Z)
• TRACE: Temporal Rule-Anchored Chain-of-Evidence on Knowledge Graphs for Interpretable Stock Movement Prediction [23.985633276560844]
  We present a Temporal Rule-Anchored Chain-of-Evidence (TRACE) on knowledge graphs for interpretable stock movement prediction.<n>On an S&P500 benchmark, the method achieves 55.1% accuracy, 55.7% precision, 71.5% recall, and 60.8% F1.<n>The gains stem from (i) rule-guided exploration that focuses search on economically meaningful motifs rather than arbitrary walks, and (ii) text-grounded consolidation that aggregates high-confidence, fully grounded hypotheses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T22:41:53Z)
• Decoding Answers Before Chain-of-Thought: Evidence from Pre-CoT Probes and Activation Steering [5.427346259545067]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models.<n>We show that instruction-tuned models often determine their answer before generating CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T04:33:55Z)
• Internalizing LLM Reasoning via Discovery and Replay of Latent Actions [4.830503861275364]
  Internalization of chain-of-thought processes into hidden states has emerged as a highly efficient paradigm for scaling test-time compute.<n>We propose STIR (Self-Distilled Tools for Internal Reasoning), a framework that reformulates reasoning enhancement as a dynamic latent trajectory control problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T08:44:57Z)
• Probing the Trajectories of Reasoning Traces in Large Language Models [4.599673637363014]
  We propose a protocol to probe the trajectories of reasoning traces in large language models.<n>We find that accuracy and decision commitment consistently increase as the percentage of provided reasoning tokens grows.<n>We show that trajectory probing provides diagnostics for efficient and safer deployment of reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T16:45:16Z)
• Efficient Thought Space Exploration through Strategic Intervention [54.35208611253168]
  We propose a novel Hint-Practice Reasoning (HPR) framework that operationalizes this insight through two synergistic components.<n>The framework's core innovation lies in Distributional Inconsistency Reduction (DIR), which dynamically identifies intervention points.<n> Experiments across arithmetic and commonsense reasoning benchmarks demonstrate HPR's state-of-the-art efficiency-accuracy tradeoffs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T07:26:01Z)
• Alpamayo-R1: Bridging Reasoning and Action Prediction for Generalizable Autonomous Driving in the Long Tail [85.47497935739936]
  Alpamayo-R1 (AR1) is a vision-language-action model that integrates Chain of Causation reasoning with trajectory planning.<n>We show AR1 achieves 12% improvement in planning accuracy on challenging cases compared to a trajectory-only baseline.<n>We plan to release AR1 models and a subset of the CoC in a future update.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T01:25:34Z)
• ResAD: Normalized Residual Trajectory Modeling for End-to-End Autonomous Driving [64.42138266293202]
  ResAD is a Normalized Residual Trajectory Modeling framework.<n>It reframes the learning task to predict the residual deviation from an inertial reference.<n>On the NAVSIM benchmark, ResAD achieves a state-of-the-art PDMS of 88.6 using a vanilla diffusion policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T17:59:36Z)
• Drift No More? Context Equilibria in Multi-Turn LLM Interactions [58.69551510148673]
  contexts drift is the gradual divergence of a model's outputs from goal-consistent behavior across turns.<n>Unlike single-turn errors, drift unfolds temporally and is poorly captured by static evaluation metrics.<n>We show that multi-turn drift can be understood as a controllable equilibrium phenomenon rather than as inevitable decay.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T04:48:49Z)
• Correct Reasoning Paths Visit Shared Decision Pivots [11.42890083738685]
  We introduce the idea of decision pivots-minimal, verifiable checkpoints that any correct reasoning path must visit.<n>We propose a self-training pipeline that samples diverse reasoning paths and mines shared decision pivots.<n>The proposed method aligns reasoning without ground truth reasoning data or external metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T20:34:45Z)
• 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)
• Unifying Perplexing Behaviors in Modified BP Attributions through Alignment Perspective [61.5509267439999]
  We present a unified theoretical framework for methods like GBP, RectGrad, LRP, and DTD.<n>We demonstrate that they achieve input alignment by combining the weights of activated neurons.<n>This alignment improves the visualization quality and reduces sensitivity to weight randomization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T07:58:26Z)

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.