aiqbench analysis
This paper provides a theoretical framework for understanding when entropy reductions in large language models reliably indicate improved reasoning correctness, challenging the assumption that lower uncertainty always equals better answers. Through empirical analysis across multiple benchmarks and training regimes, it identifies specific conditions under which this alignment holds or fails, offering critical insights into model interpretability and evaluation metrics.
The Stepwise Informativeness Assumption: When Do Entropy Dynamics Track Reasoning Correctness in LLMs?
arXiv:2604.06192v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent work uses entropy-based signals at multiple representation levels to study reasoning in large language models, but the field remains largely empirical. From a theoretical perspective, reductions in model uncertainty do not necessarily reflect progress toward correctness. In this work, we characterize when such alignment can be expected through the Stepwise Informativeness Assumption (SIA), which requires entropy-reducing reasoning-prefix extensions increase the probability assigned to valid answers in expectation. We show that next-token prediction can transfer answer-relevant information from training data to the model, but does not, by itself, guarantee alignment with correctness. Instead, we propose that this alignment depends on how the training regime couples reasoning traces to correct answers. Furthermore, we hypothesize observable signatures of this phenomenon and characterize its expected failure regimes. We empirically investigate how entropy dynamics relate to correctness across four reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, ARC, SVAMP, MATH) and diverse open-weight language models spanning base, instruction-tuned, and RL-trained regimes. Our results show that entropy-correctness alignment strengthens with post-training but can weaken when task difficulty exceeds model capabilities.
Title:The Stepwise Informativeness Assumption: When Do Entropy Dynamics Track Reasoning Correctness in LLMs?
Abstract:Recent work uses entropy-based signals at multiple representation levels to study reasoning in large language models, but the field remains largely empirical. From a theoretical perspective, reductions in model uncertainty do not necessarily reflect progress toward correctness. In this work, we characterize when such alignment can be expected through the Stepwise Informativeness Assumption (SIA), which requires entropy-reducing reasoning-prefix extensions increase the probability assigned to valid answers in expectation. We show that next-token prediction can transfer answer-relevant information from training data to the model, but does not, by itself, guarantee alignment with correctness. Instead, we propose that this alignment depends on how the training regime couples reasoning traces to correct answers. Furthermore, we hypothesize observable signatures of this phenomenon and characterize its expected failure regimes. We empirically investigate how entropy dynamics relate to correctness across four reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, ARC, SVAMP, MATH) and diverse open-weight language models spanning base, instruction-tuned, and RL-trained regimes. Our results show that entropy-correctness alignment strengthens with post-training but can weaken when task difficulty exceeds model capabilities.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Information Theory (cs.IT); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2604.06192 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2604.06192v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.06192 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 285 words
Related coverage
Quantum Error Correction Relies on Zero Unique Information Within Qubits
Quantum Zeitgeist · Jun 10, 2026
Generalized Correctness Models: Learning Calibrated and Model-Agnostic Correctness Predictors from Historical Patterns
arXiv · Sep 16, 2026
Correcting test set contamination by spiking the training data
arXiv · Sep 1, 2026
Spiking the training data to correct for test set contamination
arXiv · Jun 10, 2026