Legibility is Not Interpretability: Comparing Judged and Actual Importance in Chain-Of-Thought Reasoning

Reasoning traces from chain-of-thought models appear to offer a legible window into how a model arrives at its answer. A growing body of work treats them as such, using LLM judges to diagnose errors, evaluate faithfulness, and provide step-level supervision via process reward models and generative critics. These practices rely on the text of a reasoning step carrying information about its functional role. But does the text actually encode information about which reasoning steps matter? We operationalize the importance of a reasoning step as its advantage: the change in expected reward, e.g., producing the correct final answer, from including that step, estimated via Monte Carlo rollouts. Basing ground truth on these estimates, we evaluate whether LLM judges can identify high-advantage steps and find that sufficiently capable LLMs can outperform a prevalence baseline but fall well short of a noise ceiling. Fine-tuning a model as a step-level critic yields strong improvement for incorrect responses but remains distant from ceiling for correct responses, suggesting that step importance is only partially recoverable from the text of the reasoning trace. Our findings contribute to a growing body of chain-of-thought faithfulness work that cautions against treating the legibility of reasoning traces as interpretability, especially with implications for process reward modeling.

The Weakest Link Tells It All: Outcome-Supervised Process Reward Modeling via Learnable Credit Assignment

Process reward models (PRMs) enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by providing fine-grained feedback, yet training PRMs typically requires expensive stepwise annotations. Outcome-supervised PRMs offer a scalable alternative by learning from final-answer correctness alone, but this introduces a fundamental *credit assignment* challenge, i.e., attributing outcomes to responsible reasoning steps. Existing approaches rely on either uniform or causal assignment, both of which fail to anchor credit in step correctness and thus hinder process error identification. In this work, we propose Outcome-Supervised Process Reward Modeling via **L**earnable **C**redit **A**ssignment (**LCA**), an outcome-supervised PRM framework that jointly learns credit assignment and reward modeling under the principle of *Weakest Link Assignment: a reasoning chain is as strong as its weakest link*. To address mutual dependence between credit assignment and reward modeling, we formalize outcome-supervised PRM as a Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) problem and introduce Softmax-Weighted-Sum (SWS) pooling, an MIL pooling technique tailored for strong dependence and redundancy among reasoning states. We prove Bayes consistency of our algorithm under mild assumptions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that **LCA** consistently outperforms state-of-the-art outcome-supervised PRMs across multiple tasks and backbones. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LCA.