Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the relationship between reasoning behaviors and correctness in reasoning models, revealing that reasoning-oriented training can enhance certain behaviors without improving the accuracy of model outputs. By introducing the Behavioral Lift metric, the authors quantify the discrepancy between amplified reasoning behaviors and those most predictive of correctness across 15 models and 6 benchmarks. The findings highlight an Amplification-Lift Gap, where behaviors like confidence calibration are crucial for accuracy but receive minimal amplification, suggesting a need for training objectives that prioritize these key behaviors.
Reasoning-oriented training amplifies self-correction and uncertainty acknowledgment, yet fails to enhance the most predictive behaviors like confidence calibration, revealing a critical gap in model training.
Which reasoning behaviors are associated with correct answers in reasoning models, and does reasoning-oriented training amplify those behaviors? This distinction is important because reasoning-oriented training can make traces look more deliberative without amplifying the behaviors most tied to model correctness. We quantify this mismatch with Behavioral Lift, a metric that measures how much correctness changes when a behavior is present versus absent in a model's reasoning trace. Across 15 models and 6 benchmarks spanning text-only and vision-language reasoning, we annotate 15,282 traces with a taxonomy whose core behaviors are defined for both LLM and VLM traces. We find evidence for an Amplification-Lift Gap, in which thinking models strongly amplify self-correction, hypothesis testing, and uncertainty acknowledgment, while the highest-lift behaviors are confidence calibration, knowledge alignment, and self-awareness. Confidence calibration is among the strongest positive signals of correctness in both modalities, yet is barely amplified; uncertainty acknowledgment is amplified by 3--7times, yet is weakly or negatively associated with correctness. We find 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.
CMU ML