Abstract
Recent reasoning models show the ability to reflect, backtrack, andself-validate their reasoning, which is crucial in spotting mistakes andarriving at accurate solutions. A natural question that arises is howeffectively models can perform such self-reevaluation. We tackle this questionby investigating how well reasoning models identify and recover from four typesof unhelpful thoughts: uninformative rambling thoughts, thoughts irrelevant tothe question, thoughts misdirecting the question as a slightly differentquestion, and thoughts that lead to incorrect answers. We show that models areeffective at identifying most unhelpful thoughts but struggle to recover fromthe same thoughts when these are injected into their thinking process, causingsignificant performance drops. Models tend to naively continue the line ofreasoning of the injected irrelevant thoughts, which showcases that theirself-reevaluation abilities are far from a general "meta-cognitive" awareness.Moreover, we observe non/inverse-scaling trends, where larger models strugglemore than smaller ones to recover from short irrelevant thoughts, even wheninstructed to reevaluate their reasoning. We demonstrate the implications ofthese findings with a jailbreak experiment using irrelevant thought injection,showing that the smallest models are the least distracted byharmful-response-triggering thoughts. Overall, our findings call forimprovement in self-reevaluation of reasoning models to develop betterreasoning and safer systems.