CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 19, 2026

Reasoning Can Be Restored by Correcting a Few Decision Tokens

arXiv AI Archived May 19, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.16874v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) substantially outperform their base LLM counterparts on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains poorly understood where base models go wrong during token-by-token generation and how to narrow this gap efficiently. We study the base-reasoning gap through quantifying token-level distributional disagreement between a base model and a stronger reasoning model using likelihood-based divergences. Across benchmarks,

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 16 May 2026] Reasoning Can Be Restored by Correcting a Few Decision Tokens Changshuo Shen, Leheng Sheng, Yuxin Chen, An Zhang, Xiang Wang Large reasoning models (LRMs) substantially outperform their base LLM counterparts on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains poorly understood where base models go wrong during token-by-token generation and how to narrow this gap efficiently. We study the base-reasoning gap through quantifying token-level distributional disagreement between a base model and a stronger reasoning model using likelihood-based divergences. Across benchmarks, we find that the reasoning advantage is highly sparse and concentrates on a small set of early, planning-related decision tokens. For instance, on Qwen3-0.6B, only ~8% of generated tokens account for the salient disagreement, and these tokens concentrate early in the response, are strongly enriched in planning-related decisions (17x), and coincide with high base-model uncertainty -- suggesting that base models fail mainly at early planning points that steer the subsequent reasoning trajectory. Building on these findings, we propose disagreement-guided token intervention, a simple inference-time delegation scheme that performs a one-token takeover by the reasoning model only at high-disagreement positions and immediately switches back to the base model. With a small intervention budget, this sparse delegation substantially recovers and can even surpass the performance of a same-size reasoning model on challenging reasoning tasks. Code is available at this https URL. Comments: Accepted at ICML 2026 Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.16874 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.16874v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.16874 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Changshuo Shen [view email] [v1] Sat, 16 May 2026 08:33:31 UTC (3,170 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 19, 2026
    Archived
    May 19, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗