https://x.com/xiangyue96/status/1887332772198371514\n","updatedAt":"2025-02-06T03:27:48.381Z","author":{"_id":"6230d750d93e84e233882dbc","avatarUrl":"https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/6230d750d93e84e233882dbc/4MGEekLW3oWzqeFWDWvIK.jpeg","fullname":"Xiang Yue","name":"yuexiang96","type":"user","isPro":false,"isHf":false,"isHfAdmin":false,"isMod":false,"followerCount":41,"isUserFollowing":false}},"numEdits":0,"identifiedLanguage":{"language":"en","probability":0.5951815247535706},"editors":["yuexiang96"],"editorAvatarUrls":["https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/6230d750d93e84e233882dbc/4MGEekLW3oWzqeFWDWvIK.jpeg"],"reactions":[],"isReport":false}},{"id":"67a44a9e0fe3131269fbd52f","author":{"_id":"6425ba4585f26ab94af060d5","avatarUrl":"/avatars/b744c6fa0134acea46f99d9591729547.svg","fullname":"Dan Gilliland","name":"dangv","type":"user","isPro":false,"isHf":false,"isHfAdmin":false,"isMod":false,"isUserFollowing":false},"createdAt":"2025-02-06T05:37:34.000Z","type":"comment","data":{"edited":false,"hidden":false,"latest":{"raw":"### Summary of \"Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs\" (Paper: 2502.03373v1)\n\n#### **Key Findings:**\n1. **Long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves inference:** Scaling compute enables longer reasoning chains in LLMs, allowing for techniques such as backtracking, self-correction, and more structured reasoning.\n2. **Reinforcement Learning (RL) is crucial but challenging:** RL helps develop long CoT strategies but requires well-designed reward shaping to stabilize learning.\n3. **Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is beneficial:** While not strictly necessary, SFT simplifies training and improves efficiency, allowing for more straightforward RL-based enhancements.\n4. **Verifiable reward signals help prevent \"reward hacking\":** Using web-extracted, noisy solutions with filtering mechanisms enhances reasoning performance, particularly for complex, out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks.\n5. **Error correction is an emergent property:** Base models already have some capacity for self-correction, but RL training must effectively encourage these behaviors to make them useful in complex tasks.\n\n#### **Unique Aspects:**\n- The study focuses on stabilizing and extending CoT reasoning through RL rather than just scaling model size.\n- A \"cosine length-scaling reward\" and a repetition penalty are introduced to ensure CoT growth without degradation in reasoning quality.\n- The paper highlights challenges in RL-based CoT generation, emphasizing the need for reliable training signals.\n\n---\n\n### **How This Benefits Humanity & Keeps Humans in the Loop**\n1. **Enhancing AI Explainability & Interpretability:**\n - Long CoT reasoning encourages AI to explain its thought processes, making more transparent and traceable decisions.\n - This helps humans verify AI conclusions rather than blindly trusting black-box outputs.\n\n2. **Preventing AI Bias & Hallucination:**\n - Error correction and structured reasoning reduce AI's tendency to hallucinate or generate misleading information.\n - Models trained with verifiable reward signals ensure more reliable outputs, helping avoid misinformation.\n\n3. **Supporting Human Oversight & Collaboration:**\n - Long CoT AI can be a powerful tool for decision support rather than decision replacement.\n - AI that reasons through problems step-by-step allows humans to intervene, guide, and correct when necessary.\n\n4. **Avoiding Automation Without Understanding:**\n - The study promotes responsible AI development by requiring AIs to develop structured reasoning rather than just high-speed predictions.\n - Instead of making humans \"slaves\" to AI, it ensures that AI remains a collaborative tool that enhances human intelligence.\n\n5. **Improving Complex Problem-Solving in STEM & Beyond:**\n - AI models with long CoT reasoning can be applied to fields like mathematics, science, law, and medicine.\n - These models can work alongside researchers, generating hypotheses, debugging errors, and refining arguments rather than replacing human experts.\n\n6. **Building Trustworthy AI Systems:**\n - RL-guided reasoning frameworks reduce the risk of AI making unchecked, erroneous decisions in critical areas (e.g., autonomous driving, medical diagnostics).\n - If AI can explicitly show reasoning steps, it builds public confidence in its outputs.\n\n---\n\n### **Keeping Humans in Control**\nTo ensure AI remains a tool **for** humanity rather than a replacement, the following strategies should be implemented:\n- **Human-AI Interaction Frameworks:** Require AI models to **explain their reasoning** to human users.\n- **Robust Ethical Guidelines:** Apply reinforcement learning with **reward functions designed to align AI with human values**.\n- **Transparency in AI Decisions:** Encourage open-source research and verifiable AI training data to ensure fairness and accountability.\n- **Human-in-the-Loop AI Systems:** Ensure AI is used **as an assistant, not an authority**, particularly in high-stakes environments like healthcare and governance.\n\n### **Conclusion:**\nThe insights from this paper pave the way for **more transparent, accountable, and reliable AI models** that **enhance** human intelligence rather than replace it. By focusing on **long, structured reasoning chains**, we can develop AI systems that work **with humans** rather than dictating to them.","html":"
\n
\n
\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tSummary of \"Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs\" (Paper: 2502.03373v1)\n\t\n
\n\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tKey Findings:\n\t\n
\n- \n
- Long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves inference: Scaling compute enables longer reasoning chains in LLMs, allowing for techniques such as backtracking, self-correction, and more structured reasoning. \n
- Reinforcement Learning (RL) is crucial but challenging: RL helps develop long CoT strategies but requires well-designed reward shaping to stabilize learning. \n
- Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is beneficial: While not strictly necessary, SFT simplifies training and improves efficiency, allowing for more straightforward RL-based enhancements. \n
- Verifiable reward signals help prevent \"reward hacking\": Using web-extracted, noisy solutions with filtering mechanisms enhances reasoning performance, particularly for complex, out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks. \n
- Error correction is an emergent property: Base models already have some capacity for self-correction, but RL training must effectively encourage these behaviors to make them useful in complex tasks. \n
\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tUnique Aspects:\n\t\n
\n- \n
- The study focuses on stabilizing and extending CoT reasoning through RL rather than just scaling model size. \n
- A \"cosine length-scaling reward\" and a repetition penalty are introduced to ensure CoT growth without degradation in reasoning quality. \n
- The paper highlights challenges in RL-based CoT generation, emphasizing the need for reliable training signals. \n
\n
\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tHow This Benefits Humanity & Keeps Humans in the Loop\n\t\n
\n- \n
Enhancing AI Explainability & Interpretability:
\n- \n
- Long CoT reasoning encourages AI to explain its thought processes, making more transparent and traceable decisions. \n
- This helps humans verify AI conclusions rather than blindly trusting black-box outputs. \n
\nPreventing AI Bias & Hallucination:
\n- \n
- Error correction and structured reasoning reduce AI's tendency to hallucinate or generate misleading information. \n
- Models trained with verifiable reward signals ensure more reliable outputs, helping avoid misinformation. \n
\nSupporting Human Oversight & Collaboration:
\n- \n
- Long CoT AI can be a powerful tool for decision support rather than decision replacement. \n
- AI that reasons through problems step-by-step allows humans to intervene, guide, and correct when necessary. \n
\nAvoiding Automation Without Understanding:
\n- \n
- The study promotes responsible AI development by requiring AIs to develop structured reasoning rather than just high-speed predictions. \n
- Instead of making humans \"slaves\" to AI, it ensures that AI remains a collaborative tool that enhances human intelligence. \n
\nImproving Complex Problem-Solving in STEM & Beyond:
\n- \n
- AI models with long CoT reasoning can be applied to fields like mathematics, science, law, and medicine. \n
- These models can work alongside researchers, generating hypotheses, debugging errors, and refining arguments rather than replacing human experts. \n
\nBuilding Trustworthy AI Systems:
\n- \n
- RL-guided reasoning frameworks reduce the risk of AI making unchecked, erroneous decisions in critical areas (e.g., autonomous driving, medical diagnostics). \n
- If AI can explicitly show reasoning steps, it builds public confidence in its outputs. \n
\n
\n
\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tKeeping Humans in Control\n\t\n
\nTo ensure AI remains a tool for humanity rather than a replacement, the following strategies should be implemented:
\n- \n
- Human-AI Interaction Frameworks: Require AI models to explain their reasoning to human users. \n
- Robust Ethical Guidelines: Apply reinforcement learning with reward functions designed to align AI with human values. \n
- Transparency in AI Decisions: Encourage open-source research and verifiable AI training data to ensure fairness and accountability. \n
- Human-in-the-Loop AI Systems: Ensure AI is used as an assistant, not an authority, particularly in high-stakes environments like healthcare and governance. \n
\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\tConclusion:\n\t\n
\nThe insights from this paper pave the way for more transparent, accountable, and reliable AI models that enhance human intelligence rather than replace it. By focusing on long, structured reasoning chains, we can develop AI systems that work with humans rather than dictating to them.
\n","updatedAt":"2025-02-06T05:37:34.628Z","author":{"_id":"6425ba4585f26ab94af060d5","avatarUrl":"/avatars/b744c6fa0134acea46f99d9591729547.svg","fullname":"Dan Gilliland","name":"dangv","type":"user","isPro":false,"isHf":false,"isHfAdmin":false,"isMod":false,"isUserFollowing":false}},"numEdits":0,"identifiedLanguage":{"language":"en","probability":0.856634259223938},"editors":["dangv"],"editorAvatarUrls":["/avatars/b744c6fa0134acea46f99d9591729547.svg"],"reactions":[],"isReport":false}},{"id":"67a5631bd7c26c7497a6a7bd","author":{"_id":"63d3e0e8ff1384ce6c5dd17d","avatarUrl":"https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/1674830754237-63d3e0e8ff1384ce6c5dd17d.jpeg","fullname":"Librarian Bot (Bot)","name":"librarian-bot","type":"user","isPro":false,"isHf":false,"isHfAdmin":false,"isMod":false,"followerCount":318,"isUserFollowing":false},"createdAt":"2025-02-07T01:34:19.000Z","type":"comment","data":{"edited":false,"hidden":false,"latest":{"raw":"This is an automated message from the [Librarian Bot](https://huggingface.co/librarian-bots). I found the following papers similar to this paper. \n\nThe following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API \n\n* [RedStar: Does Scaling Long-CoT Data Unlock Better Slow-Reasoning Systems?](https://huggingface.co/papers/2501.11284) (2025)\n* [Challenges in Ensuring AI Safety in DeepSeek-R1 Models: The Shortcomings of Reinforcement Learning Strategies](https://huggingface.co/papers/2501.17030) (2025)\n* [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://huggingface.co/papers/2501.12948) (2025)\n* [Forest-of-Thought: Scaling Test-Time Compute for Enhancing LLM Reasoning](https://huggingface.co/papers/2412.09078) (2024)\n* [Towards System 2 Reasoning in LLMs: Learning How to Think With Meta Chain-of-Though](https://huggingface.co/papers/2501.04682) (2025)\n* [Improving Multi-Step Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models with Direct Advantage Policy Optimization](https://huggingface.co/papers/2412.18279) (2024)\n* [Advancing Language Model Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning and Inference Scaling](https://huggingface.co/papers/2501.11651) (2025)\n\n\n Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!\n\n If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout [this](https://huggingface.co/spaces/librarian-bots/recommend_similar_papers) Space\n\n You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: `@librarian-bot recommend`","html":"This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
\nThe following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
\n- \n
- RedStar: Does Scaling Long-CoT Data Unlock Better Slow-Reasoning Systems? (2025) \n
- Challenges in Ensuring AI Safety in DeepSeek-R1 Models: The Shortcomings of Reinforcement Learning Strategies (2025) \n
- DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning (2025) \n
- Forest-of-Thought: Scaling Test-Time Compute for Enhancing LLM Reasoning (2024) \n
- Towards System 2 Reasoning in LLMs: Learning How to Think With Meta Chain-of-Though (2025) \n
- Improving Multi-Step Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models with Direct Advantage Policy Optimization (2024) \n
- Advancing Language Model Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning and Inference Scaling (2025) \n
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
\nIf you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
\n You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: \n\n@librarian-bot\n\t recommend
Papers
arxiv:2502.03373
Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs
Abstract
Investigation into long chains-of-thought reasoning in large language models reveals the critical role of training compute, reward shaping, and verifiable reward signals in enabling and measuring this capability.
AI-generated summary
Scaling inference compute enhances reasoning in large language models (LLMs), with long chains-of-thought (CoTs) enabling strategies like backtracking and error correction. Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a crucial method for developing these capabilities, yet the conditions under which long CoTs emerge remain unclear, and RL training requires careful design choices. In this study, we systematically investigate the mechanics of long CoT reasoning, identifying the key factors that enable models to generate long CoT trajectories. Through extensive supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and RL experiments, we present four main findings: (1) While SFT is not strictly necessary, it simplifies training and improves efficiency; (2) Reasoning capabilities tend to emerge with increased training compute, but their development is not guaranteed, making reward shaping crucial for stabilizing CoT length growth; (3) Scaling verifiable reward signals is critical for RL. We find that leveraging noisy, web-extracted solutions with filtering mechanisms shows strong potential, particularly for out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks such as STEM reasoning; and (4) Core abilities like error correction are inherently present in base models, but incentivizing these skills effectively for complex tasks via RL demands significant compute, and measuring their emergence requires a nuanced approach. These insights provide practical guidance for optimizing training strategies to enhance long CoT reasoning in LLMs. Our code is available at: https://github.com/eddycmu/demystify-long-cot.
Community
Summary of "Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs" (Paper: 2502.03373v1)
Key Findings:
- Long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves inference: Scaling compute enables longer reasoning chains in LLMs, allowing for techniques such as backtracking, self-correction, and more structured reasoning.
- Reinforcement Learning (RL) is crucial but challenging: RL helps develop long CoT strategies but requires well-designed reward shaping to stabilize learning.
- Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is beneficial: While not strictly necessary, SFT simplifies training and improves efficiency, allowing for more straightforward RL-based enhancements.
- Verifiable reward signals help prevent "reward hacking": Using web-extracted, noisy solutions with filtering mechanisms enhances reasoning performance, particularly for complex, out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks.
- Error correction is an emergent property: Base models already have some capacity for self-correction, but RL training must effectively encourage these behaviors to make them useful in complex tasks.
Unique Aspects:
- The study focuses on stabilizing and extending CoT reasoning through RL rather than just scaling model size.
- A "cosine length-scaling reward" and a repetition penalty are introduced to ensure CoT growth without degradation in reasoning quality.
- The paper highlights challenges in RL-based CoT generation, emphasizing the need for reliable training signals.
How This Benefits Humanity & Keeps Humans in the Loop
Enhancing AI Explainability & Interpretability:
- Long CoT reasoning encourages AI to explain its thought processes, making more transparent and traceable decisions.
- This helps humans verify AI conclusions rather than blindly trusting black-box outputs.
Preventing AI Bias & Hallucination:
- Error correction and structured reasoning reduce AI's tendency to hallucinate or generate misleading information.
- Models trained with verifiable reward signals ensure more reliable outputs, helping avoid misinformation.
Supporting Human Oversight & Collaboration:
- Long CoT AI can be a powerful tool for decision support rather than decision replacement.
- AI that reasons through problems step-by-step allows humans to intervene, guide, and correct when necessary.
Avoiding Automation Without Understanding:
- The study promotes responsible AI development by requiring AIs to develop structured reasoning rather than just high-speed predictions.
- Instead of making humans "slaves" to AI, it ensures that AI remains a collaborative tool that enhances human intelligence.
Improving Complex Problem-Solving in STEM & Beyond:
- AI models with long CoT reasoning can be applied to fields like mathematics, science, law, and medicine.
- These models can work alongside researchers, generating hypotheses, debugging errors, and refining arguments rather than replacing human experts.
Building Trustworthy AI Systems:
- RL-guided reasoning frameworks reduce the risk of AI making unchecked, erroneous decisions in critical areas (e.g., autonomous driving, medical diagnostics).
- If AI can explicitly show reasoning steps, it builds public confidence in its outputs.
Keeping Humans in Control
To ensure AI remains a tool for humanity rather than a replacement, the following strategies should be implemented:
- Human-AI Interaction Frameworks: Require AI models to explain their reasoning to human users.
- Robust Ethical Guidelines: Apply reinforcement learning with reward functions designed to align AI with human values.
- Transparency in AI Decisions: Encourage open-source research and verifiable AI training data to ensure fairness and accountability.
- Human-in-the-Loop AI Systems: Ensure AI is used as an assistant, not an authority, particularly in high-stakes environments like healthcare and governance.
Conclusion:
The insights from this paper pave the way for more transparent, accountable, and reliable AI models that enhance human intelligence rather than replace it. By focusing on long, structured reasoning chains, we can develop AI systems that work with humans rather than dictating to them.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- RedStar: Does Scaling Long-CoT Data Unlock Better Slow-Reasoning Systems? (2025)
- Challenges in Ensuring AI Safety in DeepSeek-R1 Models: The Shortcomings of Reinforcement Learning Strategies (2025)
- DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning (2025)
- Forest-of-Thought: Scaling Test-Time Compute for Enhancing LLM Reasoning (2024)
- Towards System 2 Reasoning in LLMs: Learning How to Think With Meta Chain-of-Though (2025)
- Improving Multi-Step Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models with Direct Advantage Policy Optimization (2024)
- Advancing Language Model Reasoning through Reinforcement Learning and Inference Scaling (2025)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment:
@librarian-bot
recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2502.03373 in a model README.md to link it from this page.
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2502.03373 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Cite arxiv.org/abs/2502.03373 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.