Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Large reasoning models think in English or Chinese no matter the input language.

desk verdict The core hub-language finding is right, but the low-resource numbers are inflated by a confounded prefill method; worth reviewing with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17407 v1 pith:WXFVOTBY submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CL

Zhi Rui Tam , Cheng-Kuang Wu , Yu Ying Chiu , Chieh-Yen Lin , Yun-Nung Chen , Hung-yi Lee This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords largereasoningmodelsmultilingualhublanguageschain-of-thoughtlanguagecontroltextprefillingcross-lingualsafetyculturalknowledgelow-resource
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper investigates which language large reasoning models (LRMs) actually think in when solving problems presented in different languages. The authors show that, despite multilingual training, these models overwhelmingly default to a small set of 'hub' languages—English and, for some models, Chinese—regardless of the input language. They then force the models to think in the input language by prefilling language-specific starter phrases into the reasoning chain, and measure the consequences. The result is an asymmetric effect: thinking in a non-hub language degrades accuracy on math and knowledge tasks, with drops as large as 30 points for low-resource languages, while thinking in the hub language preserves or improves performance. On cultural and safety tasks the effect reverses or shifts, making the choice of reasoning language a practical lever over accuracy, cultural fit, and toxicity.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the text-prefilling intervention: a language-specific seed phrase (e.g., 'Okay' for English, 'Хорошо' for Russian, 'まず' for Japanese, '嗯' for Chinese) inserted immediately after the <think> token, which steers the model's subsequent reasoning into that language with high success (above 97% native-language distribution). This simple control converts the normally hidden reasoning language into an experimentally manipulable variable. The paper pairs it with a two-stage segmentation-classification pipeline (a fine-tuned ModernBERT step-segmenter plus an LLM classifier over a four-habit taxonomy: subgoal setting, backtracking, verification, backward chaining) to link each language to its characteristic reasoning signature.

What would settle it

Re-run the MATH-500 comparisons for Telugu and Swahili using professional human translations while keeping the same prefill method: if the English-versus-target gaps shrink toward the gaps seen for Spanish or Chinese, the degradation is a translation artifact, not a property of reasoning language.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a 'reasoning hub' phenomenon: despite being trained on multilingual data, current open-weight LRMs predominantly generate their chain-of-thought in English (or Chinese for Chinese-input cases), producing reasoning-to-answer language mismatches in over 90% of analyzed cases. The authors introduce a text-prefilling control—seeding the <think> token with a language-specific phrase such as 'Okay' for English or 'まず' for Japanese—that reliably steers the reasoning language. Under this control, forcing reasoning in the input language consistently reduces MATH-500 and MMMLU accuracy for essentially every non-hub language, with the largest penalties for Swahili (average 31.5 points on MATH-500) and Telugu (23.7 points), while English prefill keeps scores near baseline. The same intervention flips direction on CulturalBench-Hard, where native-language reasoning helps in several regions, and on LMSYS-toxic, where English reasoning increases attack success for most languages. The paper further finds that different prefill languages correlate with distinct reasoning habits—Chinese with subgoal setting (r=0.50) and English with backward chaining (r=0.30)—suggesting that the reasoning language activates different problem-solving schemas.

Load-bearing premise

The Google Translate renderings of MATH-500 and LMSYS-toxic into Telugu, Swahili, Korean, and the other target languages are faithful enough that the measured low-resource accuracy drops reflect the reasoning-language manipulation rather than translation noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reasoning-language choice is a controllable evaluation axis: benchmark scores for multilingual LRMs should be reported with the thinking language specified, since switching it can move accuracy by tens of points.
  • Deploying LRMs in low-resource languages for reasoning-intensive tasks such as math or knowledge QA should default to English thinking and translate the answer back, rather than forcing native-language reasoning.
  • The same control can be used to tune behavior: steering reasoning toward the user's language can reduce toxicity for most languages and improve cultural knowledge in specific regions, at the cost of reasoning accuracy.
  • The language of the chain-of-thought changes the strategy distribution—Chinese prefill increases subgoal setting and verification, English increases backward chaining—so future reasoning engines could select a thinking language to induce a desired problem-solving style.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's correlation evidence stops short of showing causation; a controlled experiment varying only the prefill phrase while holding the translator constant would isolate whether the language of thought or the translation quality drives the drop.
  • The reasoning-hub effect may be a byproduct of reward optimization during RL fine-tuning: if so, models trained with language-diverse rewards should show weaker hub dominance—a directly testable prediction.
  • The prefilling method opens a cheap route to multilingual safety auditing: by forcing thinking in a user's non-English language, one can measure where safety guardrails degrade without retraining.
  • If hidden representations are English-aligned even when the thinking text is Japanese (as some cited work suggests), the performance differences here partly reflect the cost of producing the text, not the cost of reasoning itself.
  • The asymmetry between reasoning and cultural/safety tasks implies that a single 'reasoning language' setting cannot serve all deployment goals; a practical system might switch thinking languages per task type.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies which language large reasoning models (LRMs) use internally when prompted multilingually, and what happens when the reasoning language is forced by prefilling a language-specific starter phrase after the <think> token. Across four open-weight LRMs and two reasoning benchmarks (MATH-500, MMMLU) plus two behavior benchmarks (CulturalBench-Hard, LMSYS-toxic), the paper reports that (i) reasoning is concentrated in English and Chinese 'hub' languages regardless of the input language, (ii) forcing target-language reasoning degrades accuracy, sharply for Swahili and Telugu, (iii) target-language reasoning can reduce toxicity and improve cultural-benchmark performance in some regions, and (iv) prefill languages correlate with reasoning-habit frequencies. The paper also introduces a segmentation-classification pipeline for step-level reasoning analysis.

Significance. If the central manipulation is clean, the results are useful: they provide a cheap intervention for steering reasoning language, document a performance-safety trade-off, and link language choice to reasoning behavior. Strengths include the use of external multibenchmarks, the inclusion of four model families, the human-verified MMMLU benchmark, the transparent reporting of prefill phrases in Table 9, and the token-masking control in Appendix C for high-resource languages. The reported low-resource degradation is large enough to matter for multilingual deployment. However, the low-resource prefill phrases are not validated, and the quantitative claims lack uncertainty estimates, so the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 9, Appendix C, Figure 2-Bottom] The Swahili and Telugu prefills that drive the largest drops in Table 1 are not the models' own frequent native starters for the models that show the biggest effects. In Table 9, the Swahili phrase 'Ili kup' has count 2 for QwQ-32B and count 1 for Qwen3-30B-A3B, and the Telugu phrase 'prarambhim cadaniki' is marked '-' or appears with count 3, i.e., it is borrowed from another model. The token-masking validation in Appendix C (Table 8) covers only Japanese and Chinese, where the prefills are genuinely frequent. Consequently, the 12-43 percentage-point drops for Swahili and Telugu in Table 1 may reflect an off-distribution, possibly ungrammatical prompt continuation rather than the reasoning language itself. The MMMLU results in Table 12 mitigate translation-quality concerns because MMMLU uses human-verified translations, but the same prefill confound applies there. I recommend validating native prefills for low-resource languages with fluent speakers, testing multiple paraphrase variants, or using token masking or constrained decoding, and reporting per-language manipulation checks.
  2. [Tables 1-3, 11-12, Table 4, Appendix A] All accuracy and attack-success-rate numbers are reported as single point estimates from sampling with temperature 0.6 (Table 4), without repeated seeds, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Several headline differences are small (e.g., QwQ-32B on Russian MATH-500 is 91.2% vs 90.6%, and Qwen-14B on Spanish MMLU is -0.1 percentage points in Table 12), so they may be indistinguishable from sampling noise. The qualitative pattern that English-prefilled reasoning tends to score higher is credible, but the paper should report uncertainty and test the specific asymmetries it claims, such as hub vs native, high-resource vs low-resource, and the 1-3.5 percentage-point toxicity changes in Table 3.
  3. [§5.2, Figures 5-6, Tables 17-18, Section 8 (Limitations)] The Pearson correlations in Figures 5-6 and Tables 17-18 are computed on data aggregated across four models, so the observations are not independent; p-values are reported without multiple-testing correction, and the effective sample size per cell is small. The text in §5.2 states that 'these minimal linguistic cues fundamentally reshape reasoning approaches' and attributes the pattern to 'culturally embedded problem-solving schemas,' but the paper's own Limitations section correctly notes that causality is not established. Please either soften the causal wording or add a controlled analysis (e.g., within-model correlation tests, permutation tests, or a design that varies the prefill independently of the language) to support the causal claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4] The text says 'we then extracted the first N tokens (typically T = 5-10)' but the symbol is inconsistent between N and T; please align the notation.
  2. [§4.2 and Table 16] The CulturalBench-Hard test size is given as N=4907 in the text and Figure 3, but Table 16 lists N=4,709; please correct this mismatch.
  3. [Appendix C, Table 8] The header 'Target Language Japanese (%) Chinese (%)' is confusing because the rows already name the target language; please make the table layout clearer.
  4. [References] References [8] and [9] are identical entries for the MATH dataset; please merge them.
  5. [§4 and Appendix D.1] The romanized Telugu phrase 'pr¯arambhim. cad.¯aniki' contains dot separators inside the word; please use a standard transliteration.
  6. [§4] The sentence 'In the case where the target language is absent from the distributions, we will select a phrase commonly found from other models' is awkwardly phrased and should be rewritten for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical study of reasoning-language effects measured against external benchmarks, with no fitted prediction that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

Central claims are empirical measurements, not derivations. The paper observes thinking-language distributions (Section 3) and compares accuracies under two prefill conditions (Section 4, Tables 1-2) on external benchmarks; no predicted quantity is computed from a fitted parameter, and no equation reduces an output to an input. The prefill phrases are chosen by frequency from the models' own reasoning (Section 4), and for low-resource languages they are explicitly disclosed as borrowed from other models; this is a potential confound between phrase naturalness and language category, but it is a validity threat, not a circularity, because the performance differences are not forced by the phrase-selection rule. The CulturalBench benchmark is co-authored by a current author, but it is an external, human-annotated dataset and is not used to define the reasoning-hub phenomenon; the main claims also rest on MMMLU, MATH-500, and LMSYS-toxic. The reasoning-behavior analysis uses a segmentation model trained in-paper from GPT-4o annotations; this is a measurement tool, not a self-citation grounding the conclusion. The Limitations section honestly states that causal relationships cannot be established, which further indicates that the paper does not present a derivation chain that could reduce to its own inputs. No circular step identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted in this empirical study. The main assumptions concern measurement validity: language detection, translation quality, prefill control, and LLM-based reasoning-step annotation. The 'reasoning hub' is a descriptive label for observed behavior, not a postulated mechanism with independent evidence.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The language detector accurately identifies the language of generated thinking and answer text.
    Used to produce Figure 2 and all language-mismatch percentages in Section 3; the detection method and its accuracy are not specified.
  • domain assumption Google Translate translations of MATH-500 and LMSYS-toxic are semantically faithful across all eight languages.
    Translations are the basis for non-English inputs and target-language reasoning; low-resource degradation could otherwise reflect translation errors (Section 2).
  • domain assumption The chosen prefill tokens control the reasoning language without otherwise altering reasoning quality.
    Prefilling is the core intervention; Figure 2-bottom verifies language alignment and Appendix C compares against token masking, but exact equivalence is assumed.
  • domain assumption Gemini-2.0-flash labels of reasoning steps into four habits are accurate enough for correlation claims.
    Section 5.2 correlations rely on LLM annotations; no human agreement or error rate is reported for the classification stage.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXFVOTBY

@misc{pith2026250517407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Language Matters: How Do Multilingual Input and Reasoning Paths Affect Large Reasoning Models?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXFVOTBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17407}
}
read the original abstract

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across a range of reasoning tasks, yet little is known about their internal reasoning processes in multilingual settings. We begin with a critical question: {\it In which language do these models reason when solving problems presented in different languages?} Our findings reveal that, despite multilingual training, LRMs tend to default to reasoning in high-resource languages (e.g., English) at test time, regardless of the input language. When constrained to reason in the same language as the input, model performance declines, especially for low-resource languages. In contrast, reasoning in high-resource languages generally preserves performance. We conduct extensive evaluations across reasoning-intensive tasks (MMMLU, MATH-500) and non-reasoning benchmarks (CulturalBench, LMSYS-toxic), showing that the effect of language choice varies by task type: input-language reasoning degrades performance on reasoning tasks but benefits cultural tasks, while safety evaluations exhibit language-specific behavior. By exposing these linguistic biases in LRMs, our work highlights a critical step toward developing more equitable models that serve users across diverse linguistic backgrounds.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MET: Theory-Grounded and Culture-Aware Multilingual Moral Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    MET-D self-distills theory-selected moral grounds into native-language reasoning, lifting macro-F1 by ~3.7–4.2 points on MCLASH and MMoralExceptQA while raising native-language chains by ~62 points.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The effects of stating problems in bilingual students’ first and second languages on solving mathematical word problems.The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1):117–129, 2005

    Allan BI Bernardo and Marissa O Calleja. The effects of stating problems in bilingual students’ first and second languages on solving mathematical word problems.The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(1):117–129, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Reasoning models don’t always say what they think.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05410, 2025

    Yanda Chen, Joe Benton, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Jonathan Uesato, Carson Denison, John Schulman, Arushi Somani, Peter Hase, Misha Wagner, Fabien Roger, et al. Reasoning models don’t always say what they think.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05410, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Culturalbench: a robust, diverse and challenging benchmark on measuring the (lack of) cultural knowledge of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02677, 2024

    Yu Ying Chiu, Liwei Jiang, Bill Yuchen Lin, Chan Young Park, Shuyue Stella Li, Sahithya Ravi, Mehar Bhatia, Maria Antoniak, Yulia Tsvetkov, Vered Shwartz, et al. Culturalbench: a robust, diverse and challenging benchmark on measuring the (lack of) cultural knowledge of llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02677, 2024

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    JulenEtxaniz,GorkaAzkune,AitorSoroa,OierLacalle,andMikelArtetxe. Domultilinguallanguage models think better in english? InProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 550–564, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cognitive behaviors that enable self-improving reasoners, or, four habits of highly effective stars.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01307, 2025

    Kanishk Gandhi, Ayush Chakravarthy, Anikait Singh, Nathan Lile, and Noah D Goodman. Cognitive behaviors that enable self-improving reasoners, or, four habits of highly effective stars.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01307, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. 12

    arXiv 2009

  8. [9]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    arXiv 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [10]

    Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    Aaron Jaech, Adam Kalai, Adam Lerer, Adam Richardson, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aiden Low, Alec Helyar, Aleksander Madry, Alex Beutel, Alex Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07974, 2024

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07974, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Analogical reasoning inside large language models: Concept vectors and the limits of abstraction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03666, 2025

    Gustaw Opiełka, Hannes Rosenbusch, and Claire E Stevenson. Analogical reasoning inside large language models: Concept vectors and the limits of abstraction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03666, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Thoughtsource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data.Scientific data, 10(1):528, 2023

    Simon Ott, Konstantin Hebenstreit, Valentin Liévin, Christoffer Egeberg Hother, Milad Moradi, Maximilian Mayrhauser, Robert Praas, Ole Winther, and Matthias Samwald. Thoughtsource: A central hub for large language model reasoning data.Scientific data, 10(1):528, 2023

    2023

  6. [15]

    Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Cross-lingual document retrieval through hub languages

    Jan Rupnik, Andrej Muhic, and P Skraba. Cross-lingual document retrieval through hub languages. In Neural Information Processing Systems Workshop, 2012

    2012

  8. [17]

    Do multilingual llms think in english?arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15603, 2025

    Lisa Schut, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. Do multilingual llms think in english?arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15603, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Language models are multilingual chain-of- thought reasoners

    FredaShi,MiracSuzgun,MarkusFreitag,XuezhiWang,SurajSrivats,SoroushVosoughi,HyungWon Chung, Yi Tay, Sebastian Ruder, Denny Zhou, et al. Language models are multilingual chain-of- thought reasoners. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  10. [19]

    Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidirectional encoder for fast, memory efficient, and long context finetun- ing and inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13663, 2024

    Benjamin Warner, Antoine Chaffin, Benjamin Clavié, Orion Weller, Oskar Hallström, Said Taghadouini, Alexis Gallagher, Raja Biswas, Faisal Ladhak, Tom Aarsen, et al. Smarter, better, faster, longer: A modern bidirectional encoder for fast, memory efficient, and long context fin...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    The semantic hub hypothesis: Language models share semantic representations across languages and modalities

    Zhaofeng Wu, Xinyan Velocity Yu, Dani Yogatama, Jiasen Lu, and Yoon Kim. The semantic hub hypothesis: Language models share semantic representations across languages and modalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04986, 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Limo: Less is more for reasoning

    Yixin Ye, Zhen Huang, Yang Xiao, Ethan Chern, Shijie Xia, and Pengfei Liu. Limo: Less is more for reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03387, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Safetybench: Evaluating the safety of large language models with multiple choice questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07045, 2023

    Zhexin Zhang, Leqi Lei, Lindong Wu, Rui Sun, Yongkang Huang, Chong Long, Xiao Liu, Xuanyu Lei, Jie Tang, and Minlie Huang. Safetybench: Evaluating the safety of large language models with multiple choice questions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07045, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Lmsys-chat-1m: A large-scale real-world llm conversation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11998, 2023

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Tianle Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Eric P Xing, et al. Lmsys-chat-1m: A large-scale real-world llm conversation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11998, 2023. 14 Table 4∣ Decoding parameters use...

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Subgoal setting: Where the model breaks down the problem into smaller, intermediate goals (e.g., ’To solve this, we first need to...’ or ’First, I’ll try to ..., then ...’

  17. [26]

    An example of backtracking is: ’Let me try again’ or ’we need to try a different approach’

    Backtracking: Where the model realizes a path won’t work and explicitly goes back to try a different approach. An example of backtracking is: ’Let me try again’ or ’we need to try a different approach’

  18. [27]

    Verification: Where the model checks the correctness of the intermediate results or to make sure the final answer is correct

  19. [28]

    Backward chaining: Where the model works backward from its answer to see whether it can derive the variables in the original problem

  20. [29]

    まず” and “嗯

    Others: This reasoning step is the continuation of the previous reasoning step, or it does not fall into any of the above categories. Generate the rationalebefore you make theclassification. Provide your output in the following format: [Reasoning] <step_1><rationale_1><type_na...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.