arXiv:2603.22816v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models increasingly "show their work" by writing step-by-step reasoning before answering. But are these reasoning steps genuinely used, or decorative narratives generated after the model has already decided? Consider: a medical AI writes "The patient's eosinophilia and livedo reticularis following catheterization suggest cholesterol embolization syndrome. Answer: B." If we remove the eosinophilia observation, does the diagnosis change? For most frontier models, the answer is no - the step was decorative. We introduce step-level evaluation: remove one reasoning sentence at a time and check whether the answer changes. This simple test requires only API access -- no model weights -- and costs approximately $1-2 per model per task. Testing 10 frontier models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus, DeepSeek-V3.2, MiniMax-M2.5, Kimi-K2.5, and others) across sentiment, mathematics, topic classification, and medical QA (N=376-500 each), the majority produce decorative reasoning: removing any step changes the answer less than 17% of the time, while any single step alone recovers the answer. This holds even on math, where smaller models (0.8-8B) show genuine step dependence (55% necessity). Two models break the pattern: MiniMax-M2.5 on sentiment (37% necessity) and Kimi-K2.5 on topic classification (39%) - but both shortcut other tasks. Faithfulness is model-specific and task-specific. We also discover "output rigidity": on the same medical questions, Claude Opus writes 11 diagnostic steps while GPT-OSS-120B outputs a single token. Mechanistic analysis (attention patterns) confirms that CoT attention drops more in late layers for decorative tasks (33%) than faithful ones (20%). Implications: step-by-step explanations from frontier models are largely decorative, per-model per-domain evaluation is essential, and training objectives - not scale - determine whether reasoning is genuine.

arXiv:2603.22858v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce the Dual-View Pheromone Pathway Network (DPPN), an architecture that routes sparse attention through a persistent pheromone field over latent slot transitions, and use it to discover two independent requirements for persistent structural memory in neural networks. Through five progressively refined experiments using up to 10 seeds per condition across 5 model variants and 4 transfer targets, we identify a core principle: persistent memory requires a stable coordinate system, and any coordinate system learned jointly with the model is inherently unstable. We characterize three obstacles -- pheromone saturation, surface-structure entanglement, and coordinate incompatibility -- and show that neither contrastive updates, multi-source distillation, Hungarian alignment, nor semantic decomposition resolves the instability when embeddings are learned from scratch. Fixed random Fourier features provide extrinsic coordinates that are stable, structure-blind, and informative, but coordinate stability alone is insufficient: routing-bias pheromone does not transfer (10 seeds, p>0.05). DPPN outperforms transformer and random sparse baselines for within-task learning (AULC 0.700 vs 0.680 vs 0.670). Replacing routing bias with learning-rate modulation eliminates negative transfer: warm pheromone as a learning-rate prior achieves +0.003 on same-family tasks (17 seeds, p