Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Reforming the Mechanism: Editing Reasoning Patterns in LLMs with Circuit Reshaping

Zhenyu Lei, Qiong Wu, Jianxiong Dong, Yinhan He, Emily Dodwell, Yushun Dong, Jundong Li · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 6, 2026, 10:51 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 13, 2026, 11:17 PM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability. Existing approaches to improving reasoning typically treat it as a general and monolithic skill, applying broad training which is inefficient and unable to target specific reasoning errors. We introduce Reasoning Editing, a paradigm for selectively modifying specific reasoning patterns in LLMs while preserving other reasoning pathways. This task presents a fundamental trade-off between Generality, the ability of an edit to generalize across different tasks sharing the same reasoning pattern, and Locality, the ability to preserve other reasoning capabilities. Through systematic investigation, we uncover the Circuit-Interference Law: Edit interference between reasoning patterns is proportional to the overlap of their neural circuits. Guided by this principle, we propose REdit, the first framework to actively reshape neural circuits before editing, thereby modulating interference between reasoning patterns and mitigating the trade-off. REdit integrates three components: (i) Contrastive Circuit Reshaping, which directly addresses the generality-locality trade-off by disentangling overlapping circuits; (ii) Meta-Contrastive Learning, which extends transferability to novel reasoning patterns; and (iii) Dual-Level Protection, which preserves preexisting abilities by constraining reshaping update directions and regularizing task-level predictions. Extensive experiments with Qwen-2.5-3B on propositional logic reasoning tasks across three difficulty levels demonstrate that REdit consistently achieves superior generality and locality compared to baselines, with additional validation in mathematics showing broader potential. Our code is available at https://github.com/LzyFischer/REdit.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit flawed reasoning ability that undermines reliability.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Math, Law, Coding
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.15
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We introduce Reasoning Editing, a paradigm for selectively modifying specific reasoning patterns in LLMs while preserving other reasoning pathways. HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 13, 2026, 11:17 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We introduce Reasoning Editing, a paradigm for selectively modifying specific reasoning patterns in LLMs while preserving other reasoning pathways.
  • Guided by this principle, we propose REdit, the first framework to actively reshape neural circuits before editing, thereby modulating interference between reasoning patterns and…
  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce Reasoning Editing, a paradigm for selectively modifying specific reasoning patterns in LLMs while preserving other reasoning pathways.
  • Guided by this principle, we propose REdit, the first framework to actively reshape neural circuits before editing, thereby modulating interference between reasoning patterns and mitigating the trade-off.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.