When AI Shows Its Work, Is It Actually Working? Step-Level Evaluation Reveals Frontier Language Models Frequently Bypass Their Own Reasoning

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Abstract

Language models increasingly "show their work" by writing step-by-step reasoning before answering. But are these reasoning steps genuinely used, or decorative narratives generated after the model has already decided? Consider: a medical AI writes "The patient's eosinophilia and livedo reticularis following catheterization suggest cholesterol embolization syndrome. Answer: B." If we remove the eosinophilia observation, does the diagnosis change? For most frontier models, the answer is no - the step was decorative. We introduce step-level evaluation: remove one reasoning sentence at a time and check whether the answer changes. This simple test requires only API access -- no model weights -- and costs approximately $1-2 per model per task. Testing 10 frontier models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus, DeepSeek-V3.2, MiniMax-M2.5, Kimi-K2.5, and others) across sentiment, mathematics, topic classification, and medical QA (N=376-500 each), the majority produce decorative reasoning: removing any step changes the answer less than 17% of the time, while any single step alone recovers the answer. This holds even on math, where smaller models (0.8-8B) show genuine step dependence (55% necessity). Two models break the pattern: MiniMax-M2.5 on sentiment (37% necessity) and Kimi-K2.5 on topic classification (39%) - but both shortcut other tasks. Faithfulness is model-specific and task-specific. We also discover "output rigidity": on the same medical questions, Claude Opus writes 11 diagnostic steps while GPT-OSS-120B outputs a single token. Mechanistic analysis (attention patterns) confirms that CoT attention drops more in late layers for decorative tasks (33%) than faithful ones (20%). Implications: step-by-step explanations from frontier models are largely decorative, per-model per-domain evaluation is essential, and training objectives - not scale - determine whether reasoning is genuine.