Samuel Lewis-Lim

Danae Sánchez Villegas, Samuel Lewis-Lim, Nikolaos Aletras et al.

Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) offer reasoning capabilities, yet how these unfold and integrate visual and textual information remains unclear. We analyze reasoning dynamics in 18 VLMs covering instruction-tuned and reasoning-trained models from two different model families. We track confidence over Chain-of-Thought (CoT), measure the corrective effect of reasoning, and evaluate the contribution of intermediate reasoning steps. We find that models are prone to answer inertia, in which early commitments to a prediction are reinforced, rather than revised during reasoning steps. While reasoning-trained models show stronger corrective behavior, their gains depend on modality conditions, from text-dominant to vision-only settings. Using controlled interventions with misleading textual cues, we show that models are consistently influenced by these cues even when visual evidence is sufficient, and assess whether this influence is recoverable from CoT. Although this influence can appear in the CoT, its detectability varies across models and depends on what is being monitored. Reasoning-trained models are more likely to explicitly refer to the cues, but their longer and fluent CoTs can still appear visually grounded while actually following textual cues, obscuring modality reliance. In contrast, instruction-tuned models refer to the cues less explicitly, but their shorter traces reveal inconsistencies with the visual input. Taken together, these findings indicate that CoT provides only a partial view of how different modalities drive VLM decisions, with important implications for the transparency and safety of multimodal systems.

Samuel Lewis-Lim, Xingwei Tan, Zhixue Zhao et al.

Recent work has demonstrated that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) often yields limited gains for soft-reasoning problems such as analytical and commonsense reasoning. CoT can also be unfaithful to a model's actual reasoning. We investigate the dynamics and faithfulness of CoT in soft-reasoning tasks across instruction-tuned, reasoning and reasoning-distilled models. Our findings reveal differences in how these models rely on CoT, and show that CoT influence and faithfulness are not always aligned.

Samuel Lewis-Lim, Xingwei Tan, Zhixue Zhao et al.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a common technique for enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). While extended reasoning can boost accuracy on complex tasks, it is often unnecessary and substantially increases token usage, limiting the practicality of reasoning models in many scenarios. Recent models, such as GPT-OSS and Qwen3, expose controls that enable users to adjust the length of CoT or determine whether it is used at all. Yet, it remains unclear when CoT should be used: on some tasks it improves performance, while on others it provides little benefit or even harms performance. We address this challenge with confidence-gated CoT, where a model invokes reasoning only when confidence in its direct answer is low. To this end, we present the first systematic study of training-free confidence estimation methods for CoT gating. Specifically, we evaluate four training-free confidence estimation methods and compare them to a random baseline and an oracle that always knows when CoT is needed. Through extensive experiments, we show that existing training-free confidence measures can reduce redundant CoT and outperform randomly invoked CoT. However, the utility of individual confidence measures is inconsistent, varying with both the dataset and the model, underscoring the difficulty of deploying confidence-gated CoT in practice. By analysing both strengths and failure modes, our study highlights the potential and limitations of current methods and paves the way toward more reliable adaptive gating of CoT.