Papers › How Does Reasoning Flow? Tracing Attention-Induced Information Flow for Targeted RL in LLMs
How Does Reasoning Flow? Tracing Attention-Induced Information Flow for Targeted RL in LLMs
Zhichen Dong, Yang Li, Yuhan Sun, Weixun Wang, Yijia Luo, Zinian Peng, Taiheng Ye, Chao Yang, Wenbo Su, Yu Cheng, Bo Zheng, Junchi Yan
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Token-level credit assignment remains a key obstacle for reinforcement learning (RL) in large language models (LLMs), where RL recipes typically treat all tokens equally, failing to distinguish decisive reasoning steps from routine formatting or fluent filler. Recent attempts leverage model-internal signals to assign finer-grained credit, but these are often point-wise heuristics that ignore the global structure of information propagation. We propose FlowTracer, an RL framework that traces answer-targeted reasoning flow on an attention-induced directed acyclic graph in which nodes correspond to tokens and edge capacities come from aggregated attention weights and derives token credit from this global structure. The edge capacities are reweighted to retain only the influence that can reach the answer region, while enforcing local flow conservation so intermediate tokens neither lose nor gain effective mass due to path length or irrelevant branches. On this graph, FlowTracer extracts an information-flow backbone connecting the question to the answer and scores tokens by flow throughput, revealing high-impact hubs and aggregation checkpoints that mediate long-range dependencies. These derived importances are used to shape token-level rewards, enabling learning signals to focus precisely on the tokens that route information toward (or away from) correct answers and delivering consistent performance gains across a range of reasoning tasks.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2606.10646")
Code
Syntology Ran 5 of 10 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 5 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 3 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 10 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
10 samples harvested; 5 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 5 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 10 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from Jiayi-Pan/TinyZero. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
360c671d6041ba3b · report
216e28c040173a61 · report
45d08b3300b3da88 · report
42a7954a8cfa89e0 · report
25f0ea3f460f6ce1 · report
1fb4adb621eefddc · report
e25af267f6e0b9e8 · report
19472d4343d0a082 · report
919cf310ad4c189a · report
3b15e2ac7497c441 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.10646, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Placed on leaderboards by Syntology Syntology
Syntology's extractor considered 3 leaderboards for this paper and placed the paper on none of them: 3 refused by a rule. What is not shown.
Syntology has checked 6,885 of the 9,623 papers on this site that are newer than the archive; results from the others appear after they are checked.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections