We propose Confusions over Time (CoT), a novel generative framework which facilitates a multi-granular analysis of the decision making process. The CoT not only models the confusions or error properties of individual decision makers and their evolution over time, but also allows us to obtain diagnostic insights into the collective decision making process in an interpretable manner.

We study learning with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) supervision from multiple thinkers, all of whom provide correct but possibly systematically different solutions, e.g., step-by-step solutions to math problems written by different thinkers, or step-by-step execution traces of different programs solving the same problem. We consider classes that are computationally easy to learn using CoT supervision from a single thinker, but hard to learn with only end-result supervision, i.e., without CoT (Joshi et al. 2025). We establish that, under cryptographic assumptions, learning can be hard from CoT supervision provided by two or a few different thinkers, in passive data-collection settings. On the other hand, we provide a generic computationally efficient active learning algorithm that learns with a small amount of CoT data per thinker that is completely independent of the target accuracy $\varepsilon$, a moderate number of thinkers that scales as $\log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\log \log \frac{1}{\varepsilon}$, and sufficient passive end-result data that scales as $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot poly\log\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$.

When answering a question, humans utilize the information available across different modalities to synthesize a consistent and complete chain of thought (CoT). This process is normally a black box in the case of deep learning models like large-scale language models. Recently, science question benchmarks have been used to diagnose the multi-hop reasoning ability and interpretability of an AI system. However, existing datasets fail to provide annotations for the answers, or are restricted to the textual-only modality, small scales, and limited domain diversity. To this end, we present Science Question Answering (SCIENCEQA), a new benchmark that consists of 21k multimodal multiple choice questions with diverse science topics and annotations of their answers with corresponding lectures and explanations. We further design language models to learn to generate lectures and explanations as the chain of thought (CoT) to mimic the multi-hop reasoning process when answering SCIENCEQA questions. SCIENCEQA demonstrates the utility of CoT in language models, as CoT improves the question answering performance by 1.20% in fewshot GPT-3 and 3.99% in fine-tuned UnifiedQA. We also explore the upper bound for models to leverage explanations by feeding those in the input; we observe that it improves the few-shot performance of GPT-3 by 18.96%. Our analysis further shows that language models, similar to humans, benefit from explanations to learn from fewer data and achieve the same performance with just 40% of the data.1

Chain-of-thought reasoning, where language models expend additional computation by producing thinking tokens prior to final responses, has driven significant advances in model capabilities. However, training these reasoning models is extremely costly in terms of both data and compute, as it involves collecting long traces of reasoning behavior from humans or synthetic generators and further post-training the model via reinforcement learning. Are these costs fundamental, or can they be reduced through better algorithmic design? We show that autocurriculum, where the model uses its own performance to decide which problems to focus training on, provably improves upon standard training recipes for both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL). For SFT, we show that autocurriculum requires exponentially fewer reasoning demonstrations than non-adaptive fine-tuning, by focusing teacher supervision on prompts where the current model struggles. For RL fine-tuning, autocurriculum decouples the computational cost from the quality of the reference model, reducing the latter to a burn-in cost that is nearly independent of the target accuracy. These improvements arise purely from adaptive data selection, drawing on classical techniques from boosting and learning from counterexamples, and requiring no assumption on the distribution or difficulty of prompts.

The recent development of chain-of-thought (CoT) decoding has enabled large language models (LLMs) to generate explicit logical reasoning paths for complex problem-solving. However, research indicates that these paths are not always deliberate and optimal. The tree-of-thought (ToT) method employs tree-searching to extensively explore the reasoning space and find better reasoning paths that CoT decoding might overlook. This deliberation, however, comes at the cost of significantly increased inference complexity. In this work, we demonstrate that fine-tuning LLMs leveraging the search tree constructed by ToT allows CoT to achieve similar or better performance, thereby avoiding the substantial inference burden. This is achieved through \emph{Chain of Preference Optimization} (CPO), where LLMs are fine-tuned to align each step of the CoT reasoning paths with those of ToT using the inherent preference information in the tree-search process. Extensive experimental results show that CPO significantly improves LLM performance in solving a variety of complex problems, including question answering, fact verification, and arithmetic reasoning, demonstrating its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/sail-sg/CPO .

Language models are increasingly being deployed for general problem solving across a wide range of tasks, but are still confined to token-level, left-to-right decision-making processes during inference.

Our work makes one of the first attempts at highlighting the potential of post hoc explanations as valuable tools for enhancing the effectiveness of LLMs.

These methods, while effective, often involve manually intensive prompt engineering.