pith. sign in

hub Canonical reference

Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Canonical reference. 76% of citing Pith papers cite this work as background.

85 Pith papers citing it
Background 76% of classified citations
abstract

Large language models (LLMs) perform better when they produce step-by-step, "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) reasoning before answering a question, but it is unclear if the stated reasoning is a faithful explanation of the model's actual reasoning (i.e., its process for answering the question). We investigate hypotheses for how CoT reasoning may be unfaithful, by examining how the model predictions change when we intervene on the CoT (e.g., by adding mistakes or paraphrasing it). Models show large variation across tasks in how strongly they condition on the CoT when predicting their answer, sometimes relying heavily on the CoT and other times primarily ignoring it. CoT's performance boost does not seem to come from CoT's added test-time compute alone or from information encoded via the particular phrasing of the CoT. As models become larger and more capable, they produce less faithful reasoning on most tasks we study. Overall, our results suggest that CoT can be faithful if the circumstances such as the model size and task are carefully chosen.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 16 baseline 1

citation-polarity summary

claims ledger

  • abstract Large language models (LLMs) perform better when they produce step-by-step, "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) reasoning before answering a question, but it is unclear if the stated reasoning is a faithful explanation of the model's actual reasoning (i.e., its process for answering the question). We investigate hypotheses for how CoT reasoning may be unfaithful, by examining how the model predictions change when we intervene on the CoT (e.g., by adding mistakes or paraphrasing it). Models show large variation across tasks in how strongly they condition on the CoT when predicting their answer, sometimes

co-cited works

representative citing papers

Analyzing the Narration Gap in LLM-Solver Loops

cs.AI · 2026-06-17 · unverdicted · novelty 8.0

The narration step in LLM-solver loops is vulnerable to prompt injection that inverts verified solver conclusions, and hardened prompts reduce but do not eliminate the risk under adaptive attacks.

Green Shielding: A User-Centric Approach Towards Trustworthy AI

cs.CL · 2026-04-27 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

Green Shielding introduces CUE criteria and the HCM-Dx benchmark to demonstrate that routine prompt variations systematically alter LLM diagnostic behavior along clinically relevant dimensions, producing Pareto-like tradeoffs in plausibility versus coverage.

Escaping the Agreement Trap: Defensibility Signals for Evaluating Rule-Governed AI

cs.AI · 2026-04-22 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

Introduces Defensibility Index, Ambiguity Index, and Probabilistic Defensibility Signal to evaluate AI moderation decisions by logical derivability from explicit rules rather than agreement with historical labels, with validation on 193k+ Reddit cases showing 33-46.6 pp metric gaps and a Governance

Local Causal Attribution of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

cs.LG · 2026-06-20 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

AttriCoT is a black-box algorithm that attributes causal importance to units in a specific CoT trace via a structural causal model estimated with linear forward passes.

The Self-Correction Illusion: LLMs Correct Others but Not Themselves

cs.AI · 2026-06-04 · conditional · novelty 6.0

Relabeling an identical erroneous claim from the model's own thought role to an external chat role increases explicit correction rates by 23-93 percentage points across 13 model-domain cells, indicating a chat-template artifact rather than a cognitive deficit.

citing papers explorer

Showing 50 of 85 citing papers.