The Tell-Tale Trace: Detecting Reasoning Failures in LLMs Using Chain-of-Thought Dynamics

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance while also providing an observable interface to the model's reasoning process. Existing approaches that leverage verbalized CoTs to monitor reasoning correctness, however, largely evaluate the semantic correctness or consistency of individual intermediate steps, rather than how the reasoning process evolves across the trace. As a result, failures distributed across the reasoning trajectory, rather than those localized to a single incorrect step, remain comparatively underexplored. Furthermore, verbalized CoTs need not faithfully reflect the model's internal reasoning, motivating analyses that do not treat individual statements as literal accounts of internal computation. In this work, we therefore ask whether the dynamics of visible CoT can be leveraged to systematically distinguish successful from failed reasoning without assuming such semantic faithfulness. We study a range of LLMs on verifiable Boolean satisfiability tasks with variable complexity, enabling controlled comparisons near each model's capability frontier. Tagging CoT sentences by reasoning function reveals premature verification collapse on SAT problems: incorrect traces enter clause checking earlier, repeat similar operations, and finalize sooner. On UNSAT problems, models presumptuously move towards incorrect SAT conclusions, checking candidate assignments rather than deriving contradictions across constructed cases. Subsequently, a targeted proof-search prompt intervention raises Llama3-70B accuracy from 13.3% to 85%, correcting 84.6% of these errors. These results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.

When LLMs Read Tables Carelessly: Measuring and Reducing Data Referencing Errors

While large language models (LLMs) perform well on table tasks, they still make data referencing errors (DREs), i.e., incorrectly citing or omitting table values, despite understanding the table structure. Beyond final-answer accuracy, DREs directly compromise the correctness and reliability of intermediate reasoning steps. Yet prior studies have only offered limited, small-scale analyses. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of tabular data referencing errors across different models and tasks. Our results show that DREs occur across all tested models (1.7B to 20B parameters). Furthermore, we demonstrate that incorporating data referencing as a critic significantly improves answer accuracy up to 12.0%, through critic-based filtering and rejection sampling. Finally, we trained a lightweight 4B-parameter critic model that achieves an average F1 score of 78.2% in detecting both in-distribution and out-of-distribution DREs, and effectively assists inference for larger models.

Speaking in Self-Assessing Tongues: On the Verbalized Confidence of LLMs in Machine Translation

The rapid rise in popularity of large language models (LLMs) for translation calls for a thorough study of the reliability of their confidence in their own outputs. Unlike many generation tasks, translation errors and confidence levels can be useful at different levels of granularity (tokens, words, or spans). Unsupervised approaches based on internal signals like predicted probabilities can be misleading because they reflect certainty among alternatives rather than correctness. In addition, they require access to such internal signals. Here, we devise five verbalized methods of extracting an LLM's per-token confidence without those shortcomings and compare their reliability with that of the model's internal signals of certainty. We evaluate reliability using two forms of alignment: fine-grained error detection and calibration. For both, internal and verbalized methods perform similarly, although results vary by model. Interestingly, we find little to no correlation between internal and verbalized methods.

The Self-Correction Illusion: Role Relabeling Gates Explicit Error Flagging in Large Language Models

Recent works show that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces, despite their ability to correct errors from external sources. We ask whether this reflects a capability deficit or an artifact of the role labeling. To test this, we design a training-free intervention, source-conditioned role relabeling, that keeps the erroneous claim byte-identical and varies only its message role. The claim is presented inside the agent's "<thought>", a user message, a tool response, or a system "<memory>" block. We test 12 model-domain combinations spanning closed-weight APIs and open-weight models from 70B-class down to smaller families. Relabeling "<thought>" to an external role increases the explicit-correction rate by 23 to 93 percentage points, significant in 10 of 12 experimental settings. This suggests that these models' failure to detect a self-generated error is largely an artifact of how the claim is role-labeled in the chat template, rather than a pure cognitive deficit. The most effective role label is domain-dependent: "<memory>" dominates in most math experiments, while a user message dominates in logical deduction. Recognizing role-label handling as a key experimental variable in instruction tuning presents a more direct path to closing the self-correction gap.d

Are Large Language Models Reliable Reviewers? A Benchmark for Error Detection in Financial Documents

Ensuring the accuracy of financial documents is critical for economic analysis, regulatory compliance, and corporate decision-making. Several studies have shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well in many financial tasks, such as stock price movements and financial analytics. However, a critical task remains unexplored: the ability of LLMs to identify errors in financial documents. In this paper, we introduce \textbf{FinED-Bench}, the first publicly \textbf{Bench}mark for \textbf{Fin}ancial \textbf{E}rror \textbf{D}etection across three levels of cognitive complexity. FinED-Bench covers nine real-world financial scenarios, and includes over 900 documents reported in 2025 that are unseen by existing language models. We detail the benchmark construction process and evaluate several advanced LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o, Qwen3-14B) on this tasks, which requires both financial domain knowledge and reasoning capabilities. Experimental results show that current LLMs still struggle with this task, especially in high-complexity cases. Besides, supervised fine-tuning can significantly improve the performance of weaker LLMs on this task. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/hedyHe/FinED-Bench.

When Helping Hurts and How to Fix It: Multi-Agent Debate for Data Cleaning

When does multi-agent debate help data cleaning, and when does it hurt? Across three benchmarks, four model families, and over 6,000 task-condition pairs, we find debate's effect reverses sign: it degrades generation across all four models (-1.6 to -15.5pp) through critique-induced confusion (CIC), hallucinated Critic feedback that the Generator accepts uncritically, yet improves error detection (+27.4pp F1, d=1.0). We derive a debate benefit condition: debate helps when the probability of rescuing a wrong output (Critic verification odds weighted by fixability) exceeds the probability of destroying a correct one. A factorial experiment proves adversarial separation is essential: self-verification with identical tools fails, while a separate Critic with code-execution grounding and evidence-gated generation produces the first debate configuration to significantly exceed single-agent on a generative task (+5.3pp, p<0.05). The condition correctly predicts all nine task types and generalizes with zero false positives across 19 published comparisons in seven domains.