Strong dislike for papers that tell me what to do in the title, especially when even the paper admits a loose correlation of the intermediate tokens compared to solution correctness. My solutions work and they speak for themselves.
I admit I didn't read the paper, but if thinking traces are not "thinking", then what are they? If their content is not representing progress towards a solution then they are irrelevant and we should just be able to remove them and save a lot of time and money. There's a lot of money to be made by doing so. So why are they there at all? What do they represent?
A paper title is marketing, you’re expected to read its content
> My solutions work and they speak for themselves.
I understand the sentiment, and I also use the "thinking" traces as insight, but wouldn't you want your solutions to be based upon a good understanding? If the correlation is weak, then our solution is also weak.
I hate articles that do this as well in the title. It's basically just a form of clickbait.
This is a position paper. Its purpose is to advocate for a specific viewpoint to the ML community.
From [1]: "Position papers make an argument for a viewpoint or perspective about what should be done [...]"
[1] https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers