Thought Branches: Interpreting LLM Reasoning Requires Resampling
Uzay Macar, Paul C. Bogdan, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Neel Nanda
Abstract
We argue that interpreting reasoning models from a single chain-of-thought (CoT) is fundamentally inadequate. To understand computation and causal influence, one must study reasoning as a distribution of possible trajectories elicited by a given prompt. We approximate this distribution via on-policy resampling and use it to answer concrete questions about the causes of model decisions. First, when a model states a reason for its action, does that reason actually cause the action? In agentic misalignment scenarios where models seemingly blackmail to preserve themselves, we resample specific sentences to measure their downstream effects. We find that normative self-preservation sentences have unusually small and non-resilient causal impact on the final decision across models, indicating they are not a meaningful driver of blackmail. Second, are handwritten edits to CoT sufficient for steering reasoning? We find that off-policy sentence insertions common in earlier literature yield small and unstable effects in decision-making tasks, whereas on-policy resampling produces larger and more consistent effects. Third, how do we attribute causal influence when models modify their plans or correct prior errors during reasoning? We introduce a resilience metric and counterfactual importance that repeatedly resample to remove sentences such that similar content doesn't reappear downstream. Critical planning statements resist removal but have large effects when successfully eliminated. Fourth, what can our methods, which focus on the mechanistic roles of CoT, teach us about unfaithful reasoning? Adapting causal mediation analysis, we edit hint pathways mid-trajectory and find that prompt hints exert smooth and cumulative influences rather than single-step pivots. Hidden information can influence the trajectory of reasoning by shifting what decisions are made at different junctures in a CoT, and these biases can be modeled and quantified with resampling. Overall, studying distributions via resampling enables reliable causal analysis, clearer narratives of model reasoning, and principled guidance for CoT interventions.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- Reasoning Theater: Disentangling Model Beliefs from Chain-of-ThoughtSiddharth Boppana, Annabel Ma, Max Loeffler, Raphaël Sarfati et al.ICML 2026 · 30 citations
- Scientific logicality enriched methodology for LLM reasoning: A practice in physicsZhaoxin Yu, Nan Xu, Kun Chen, Jiahao Zhao et al.ICML 2026
Builds on6
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always FaithfulIván Arcuschin, Jett Janiak, Robert Krzyzanowski, Senthooran Rajamanoharan et al.ICML 2026 · 175 citations
- Knowledge Editing through Chain-of-ThoughtChangyue Wang, Weihang Su, Qingyao Ai, Yichen Tang et al.EMNLP 2025 · 2 citations
Related papers
- DeCoT: Debiasing Chain-of-Thought for Knowledge-Intensive Tasks in Large Language Models via Causal InterventionJunda Wu, Tong Yu, Xiang Chen, Haoliang Wang et al.ACL 2024
- Dynamics Within Latent Chain-of-Thought: An Empirical Study of Causal StructureZirui Li, Xuefeng Bai, Kehai Chen, Yizhi Li et al.ICML 2026
- Reasoning Traces Shape Outputs but Models Won't Say SoYijie Hao, Lingjie Chen, Ali Emami, Joyce C. HoACL 2026
- Auditing Meta-Cognitive Hallucinations in Reasoning Large Language ModelsHaolang Lu, Yilian Liu, Jingxin Xu, Guoshun Nan et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 23 citations
- Are Reasoning LLMs Robust to Interventions on their Chain-of-Thought?Alexander von Recum, Leander Girrbach, Zeynep AkataICLR 2026 · 8 citations
