Yu, Xiao, Chen, Justin Chih-Yao, Khan, Zaid, Lee, Hyunji, Bansal, Mohit · Oct 30, 2026
arXiv cs.AI authors propose CRoS for reasoning faithfulness
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Xiao Yu and coauthors argue that outcome correctness alone does not show whether a model’s —the reasoning steps it produces—causally contributes to its answer. They say existing ways of measuring this connection can change information in those steps, making it hard to tell whether the answer changed because information changed or because the reasoning mattered. They propose CRoS, which changes the order of reasoning steps without changing their content. In an evaluation on Reasoning Gym with Gemma-3-4B, the authors report that CRoS outperformed existing causality and outcome rewards on out-of-domain accuracy, CoT quality, and CoT faithfulness. On five unseen logic and games datasets, they report 46.8% accuracy, compared with 43.8% for the strongest baseline. They also report a higher average CoT-Pass@K score and a higher hint acknowledgment score than the compared baselines. The authors’ argument is that preserving each step’s information while scrambling its order may provide a more useful training reward than perturbations that alter step content. Whether the reported gains extend beyond this evaluation setting remains open.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 30, 2026 (2026-10-30).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T10:54:11.744Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T05:01:58.897Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-02T10:35:25.797Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The reported comparison is for Reasoning Gym with Gemma-3-4B; the abstract does not establish whether the results generalize to other models or evaluation settings. The evidence provided is the paper’s abstract, which does not detail the five unseen datasets or the evaluation procedures.
Open question
Do CRoS’s reported gains hold on tasks and models beyond the Reasoning Gym evaluation with Gemma-3-4B?
Source-stated
The authors argue that outcome correctness alone does not establish whether a CoT causally contributes to an answer.
RLVR typically relies solely on outcome correctness, which does not guarantee that the CoT causally contributes to the final answer.
Source-stated
The authors say existing perturbations can confound assessments of CoT causality by changing information in reasoning steps.
these perturbations inevitably alter information in each step.
Source-stated
CRoS perturbs the order of reasoning steps while preserving their content.
perturbs the order of reasoning steps without altering content, thereby preserving information within each step.
Source-stated
In the reported evaluation, CRoS achieved 46.8% accuracy on five unseen logic and games datasets, compared with 43.8% for the strongest baseline.
CRoS achieves 46.8% accuracy on five unseen logic and games datasets, outperforming the strongest baseline (43.8%).
Source-stated
The authors report higher average CoT-Pass@K and hint acknowledgment scores for CRoS than for the compared baselines.
averaging 43.4% vs. 41.4%. For CoT faithfulness, CRoS achieves a hint acknowledgment score of 34.0% vs. 20.2%.
Source and contributor context
Yu, Xiao, Chen, Justin Chih-Yao, Khan, Zaid, Lee, Hyunji, Bansal, Mohit · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Chain of thought
The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: c85e5f74-962c-4ba4-8664-f013a5f7cf31.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T10:54:11.744Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 4d12036f551e18c1e4f27171e00c72779981906832bc92014c68367d9f54a6bf. Source text hash: a5ec213f015496b9364ce3ec77baf533257f6eb139ac9efb0bddd5f9c4cf73ed.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-10T10:54:11.744Z
arXiv cs.AI authors propose CRoS for reasoning faithfulness
Xiao Yu and coauthors argue that outcome correctness alone does not show whether a model’s —the reasoning steps it produces—causally contributes to its answer. They say existing ways of measuring this connection can change information in those steps, making it hard to tell whether the answer changed because information changed or because the reasoning mattered. They propose CRoS, which changes the order of reasoning steps without changing their content. In an evaluation on Reasoning Gym with Gemma-3-4B, the authors report that CRoS outperformed existing causality and outcome rewards on out-of-domain accuracy, CoT quality, and CoT faithfulness. On five unseen logic and games datasets, they report 46.8% accuracy, compared with 43.8% for the strongest baseline. They also report a higher average CoT-Pass@K score and a higher hint acknowledgment score than the compared baselines. The authors’ argument is that preserving each step’s information while scrambling its order may provide a more useful training reward than perturbations that alter step content. Whether the reported gains extend beyond this evaluation setting remains open.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 30, 2026 (2026-10-30).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T10:54:11.744Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T05:01:58.897Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-02T10:35:25.797Z.
Limits
The reported comparison is for Reasoning Gym with Gemma-3-4B; the abstract does not establish whether the results generalize to other models or evaluation settings. The evidence provided is the paper’s abstract, which does not detail the five unseen datasets or the evaluation procedures.
Open question
Do CRoS’s reported gains hold on tasks and models beyond the Reasoning Gym evaluation with Gemma-3-4B?
Source-stated
The authors argue that outcome correctness alone does not establish whether a CoT causally contributes to an answer.
RLVR typically relies solely on outcome correctness, which does not guarantee that the CoT causally contributes to the final answer.
Source-stated
The authors say existing perturbations can confound assessments of CoT causality by changing information in reasoning steps.
these perturbations inevitably alter information in each step.
Source-stated
CRoS perturbs the order of reasoning steps while preserving their content.
perturbs the order of reasoning steps without altering content, thereby preserving information within each step.
Source-stated
In the reported evaluation, CRoS achieved 46.8% accuracy on five unseen logic and games datasets, compared with 43.8% for the strongest baseline.
CRoS achieves 46.8% accuracy on five unseen logic and games datasets, outperforming the strongest baseline (43.8%).
Source-stated
The authors report higher average CoT-Pass@K and hint acknowledgment scores for CRoS than for the compared baselines.
averaging 43.4% vs. 41.4%. For CoT faithfulness, CRoS achieves a hint acknowledgment score of 34.0% vs. 20.2%.
Source and contributor context
Yu, Xiao, Chen, Justin Chih-Yao, Khan, Zaid, Lee, Hyunji, Bansal, Mohit · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Chain of thought
The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: c85e5f74-962c-4ba4-8664-f013a5f7cf31.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T10:54:11.744Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 4d12036f551e18c1e4f27171e00c72779981906832bc92014c68367d9f54a6bf. Source text hash: a5ec213f015496b9364ce3ec77baf533257f6eb139ac9efb0bddd5f9c4cf73ed.
uncertain · 2026-11-10T10:54:11.744Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: c85e5f74-962c-4ba4-8664-f013a5f7cf31
attribution — pass: The reading attributes the argument and results to Xiao Yu and coauthors, matching the listed authors. The title's 'arXiv cs.AI' label reflects the feed; the primary category is cs.CL with cs.AI cross-listed. This is not a misattribution.
Authors:Xiao Yu, Justin Chih-Yao Chen, Zaid Khan, Hyunji Lee, Mohit Bansal
summary — uncertain: The reading defines CoT, but several central terms remain unexplained for a general reader: the training method RLVR (reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards) and 'outcome rewards,' plus out-of-domain, CoT-Pass@K and hint acknowledgment score. It also drops part of the authors' motivation: when confounded metrics are used as training rewards, they produce less informative CoTs and less exploration and self-correction. Smallest repair: state that CRoS is a reward used when training models to reason. Add one sentence on the harms the authors attribute to existing metrics. Gloss the metric terms through tooltips.
including generating less informative CoTs and reducing exploration and self-correction
date — pass: originalPublished 2026-10-30 matches the v1 submission date. The 2026-11-02 date belongs to the later feed entry, not the original submission.
[Submitted on 30 Oct 2026]
support — pass: The reported numbers (46.8% vs 43.8%; CoT-Pass@K 43.4% vs 41.4%; hint acknowledgment 34.0% vs 20.2%) match the abstract and are presented as the authors' reports. The generalization question and the limitations are appropriately conditional and do not invent benefits.
CRoS achieves 46.8% accuracy on five unseen logic and games datasets, outperforming the strongest baseline (43.8%).
media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the direct original source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivThe step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv