Base Models Can Reason By Taking a Cue From Training Data
Fixing initial token cues in base models boosts reasoning to match RL performance, with effects traced to training data associations that can be causally edited.
Published Oct 5, 2026▲ 12 on Hugging FaceCode ★ 2arXiv ↗
Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.
The paper proves reasoning is data-conditioned cue retrieval, not logic, with causal token edits and hidden-state document correlations that expose RL as cue amplification.
Abstract
In this paper, we study how training data creates associations between the tokens at the start of a base model's response and the reasoning behavior that follows. First, we demonstrate that fixing particular starting token cues makes a base model's performance competitive with that of its reinforcement learning (RL)-trained counterparts on math and coding. For instance, the cue ".\n\nOkay" raises Olmo-3-7B's MATH-500 pass@1 accuracy from 42% to 78%, while "Alright," raises Qwen3-14B's from 72% to 87%. Second, RL makes these cues more likely, while fixing them recovers much of its performance gain over the base model. Third, we trace the reasoning effects of token cues to the training data. We perform causal data interventions to turn an arbitrary word, such as "chicken", into an effective reasoning cue, or remove an existing cue's effect. A similar edit makes the prompt instruction "Think duck duck goose" as effective as "Think step by step" at eliciting reasoning. We also find that the hidden state representations induced by different cues correlate with different document types from the training set. Finally, we extend our study of token cues with a case study in language model safety, finding that different cues elicit distinct refusal and compliance behaviors that correspond to different types of training data.