Abstract
We investigate whether variation in information density across chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning steps predicts answer correctness and can serve as a controllable inference-time target. We prompt frozen pretrained models to solve problems via CoT and measure the density of each reasoning step with two independent metrics: LP variance (how unevenly information is distributed across steps, computed as the variance in mean per-token negative log-likelihood) and the Caveman compression ratio. We then test whether density correlates with, and can be steered to improve, answer correctness. Experiments across six model scales, two training paradigms, and 60 GSM8K problems yield four main findings. First, lower LP variance predicts correctness in supervised fine-tuned (SFT) models, but this relationship weakens with scale and reverses in reinforcement-learning (RL) distilled models. Training paradigm therefore appears more influential than model size in determining density behaviour. Second, synthetic experiments reveal an intrinsic complexity preference: models trained on uniformly distributed data learn complexity-favouring distributions 2.0 to 2.6 times more accurately than simplicity-favouring ones. Third, direct inference-time density steering reduces accuracy from 60.0% to 8.3%, indicating that natural density patterns are functionally important to reasoning. Fourth, pre-generation nudging combining hint injection with contrastive KV-cache steering improves accuracy by 13.3 percentage points, consistent across both metrics. Finally, we introduce Entropy-Gated Density Routing (EGDR), a self-supervised method using token-level Shannon entropy to gate proportional KVcache adjustments during generation, improving accuracy by 10.0 percentage points without any external guidance.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21286
