Sep 2026· International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management· 0 citations
TL;DR
It is argued that emergent reasoning in LLMs is a product of three factors: model size, prompting approach, and evaluation metric, and proposed implications for designing benchmarks and assessing capabilities are proposed.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are said to exhibit “emergent” reasoning capabilities — ones that are virtually nonexistent in smaller models but suddenly emerge as soon as the model size surpasses a critical point. This claim has been at the heart of discussions on the capability forecasting, safety planning and evaluation methodology of LLM, but is disputed by recent research that suggests that the apparent emergence is merely an artifact of discontinuous evaluation metrics rather than a property of the underlying model. This paper offers a systematic comparison of reasoning behaviour for four model-scale classes (around 0.5B, 6B, 30B, and 70B+ parameters), and a taxonomy of five levels of task complexity ranging from factual recall to multiple-step arithmetic and logical reasoning to compositional generalization to open-ended planning. We use a benchmark set of 2,600 items sampled from existing reasoning corpora to evaluate accuracy for direct prompting, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, and self-consistency decoding and examine the evolution of accuracy curves as we increase model size and explore the three prompting methods. We find that accuracy decreases smoothly with increase in complexity and for each scale class, the rate of increase of accuracy is complexity-dependent: for low complexity tasks, accuracy is improved more gradually and predictably, whereas for multi-step or compositional tasks, accuracy shows sharp, threshold-like gains between the 6–8B and 30–70B classes, which are significantly amplified by CoT elicitation. We also demonstrate that much of this apparent sharpness can be eliminated—though not entirely—by replacing accuracy with a continuous partial credit measure, supporting both the emergence and measurement artifact explanations. Finally, we argue that emergent reasoning in LLMs is a product of three factors: model size, prompting approach, and evaluation metric, and propose implications for designing benchmarks and assessing capabilities.
Keywords—large language models; emergent abilities; chain-of-thought reasoning; task complexity; benchmark evaluation; compositional generalization.
The study concludes that future LLM systems are likely to become more adaptive, verifiable, self-evaluating, and self-correcting, and recommends improving judge reliability, error traceability, and human oversight in high-risk applications, while exploring judge-governed execution as a future extension for agentic and...
Mariam Obeidat· Academic Journal of Research...· 0 citations
Test-time compute has emerged as a major approach to improving the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing test-time reasoning paradigms rely heavily on externally imposed control, either through fixed reasoning programs or through costly expansion in constrained search spaces, limiting both gen...
Z. Gong, Yi-Kun Hou, Zi-Hao Zeng et al.· 0 citations
This tutorial provides a comprehensive, end-to-end view of LLM interpretability, transitioning from microscopic neural analysis to macroscopic application and deployment, and explores how these interpretability paradigms scale and inspire the design of frontier architectures, agentic systems, and thinking models.
Wei Zhang, Zheng-Fu He, Lu-Lu Zhang et al.· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 0 citations
Empirical support for domain-specialized structured reasoning and process-level evaluation as foundations for future RL-based C&D capability development in LLMs is provided.
Yazhi Zheng, Xiao-Long Cui, Xin Wang et al.· Computers, Materials & C...· 0 citations
A novel RAIE taxonomy along four scaling dimensions is proposed, which optimizes the entire thought process through search algorithms and self-verification, and introduces a task-oriented guideline for choosing the best TTS strategy.
Jia-Yu An, Zheng Chen, Yong-Cheng Jing et al.· Proceedings of the Thirty-Fi...· 0 citations
This work isolates abductive reasoning from deductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort.