pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01704 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

Recognition: unknown

The Reasoning Trap: An Information-Theoretic Bound on Closed-System Multi-Step LLM Reasoning

Kwan Soo Shin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords multi-agent debateinformation theorydata processing inequalityLLM reasoningfaithfulness metricsreasoning trapevidence grounding
0
0 comments X

The pith

Closed-system LLM reasoning degrades evidence information over iterative steps due to the data processing inequality.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper shows that when language models reason in closed systems by iteratively transforming each other's outputs without access to new evidence, the amount of information those outputs carry about the original evidence must decrease with each step. This follows from treating the process as a Markov chain and invoking the Data Processing Inequality from information theory. A reader would care because it accounts for the observed pattern where multi-agent debates keep answer accuracy but lose the quality of their reasoning, as measured by how well atomic claims are supported by evidence. The work contrasts this with open-system approaches that can accumulate information and proposes a protocol to avoid the trap.

Core claim

The central claim is that under standard multi-agent debate, the sequence of outputs forms a Markov chain with respect to the initial evidence E, implying by the Data Processing Inequality that the expected mutual information between E and the output at step t+1 is at most that at step t. This bound explains the Reasoning Trap, where faithfulness metrics decline even as accuracy is preserved. Experiments across conditions confirm that closed protocols like majority-vote debate reduce supported faithfulness scores sharply, while an evidence-grounded inquiry method recovers nearly all baseline performance.

What carries the argument

The DPI Bound (Theorem 1), which applies the Data Processing Inequality to the Markov chain E to O zero to O one and onward in closed-system reasoning to show non-increasing mutual information with evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The outputs produced in standard multi-agent debate form a Markov chain relative to the initial evidence, with no hidden shared state that would allow later outputs to retain more information about the evidence than earlier ones.

What would settle it

A demonstration of a closed-system protocol where the measured mutual information or supported faithfulness score increases or remains constant over multiple steps, while strictly satisfying the conditional independence of the Markov chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01704 by Kwan Soo Shin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A Map of Reasoning Faithfulness in the LLM Era. Five generations of multi-step reasoning research and the emergence of Process-Faithful Multi-Agent reasoning (Generation V). The single-agent stem evolves Gen I (outcome bench￾marking, 1995–2020) → Gen II (self-rationalization with explicit Chain-of-Thought, 2020–2023) → Gen III (CoT faithfulness as a research target, 2023–2026). The multi-agent fork from Ge… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Theorem 1’s scope across seven reasoning paradigms. Each row is a paradigm; columns are the four conditions of Theorem 1. Five paradigms (multi-agent debate, single-agent CoT under token￾Markov reading, Reflexion-style self-critique, linear traversals of Tree-of-Thought, the broader token￾Markov class) satisfy all four conditions and inherit the DPI bound. Two paradigms (Self-Consistency, Mixture-of-Expert… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Accuracy vs. SFS scatter (16 SciFact conditions). Debate variants (X markers) cluster in the lower-right (high accuracy, low SFS); EGSR variants (diamond markers) cluster near the baseline SFS of 0.349. The gap between the two clusters is the Debate Trap. Statistical strength and EGSR recovery. The C15 SFS collapse is significant at p < 10−6 (Wilcoxon, n=300), Cohen’s d = −0.96, bootstrap 95% CI [−0.222, −… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pairwise Cohen’s κ matrix for the 11 R6 raters on the binary Q2 unsupported-claim flag. Ko￾rean cohort (R1–R8 plus the cross-cohort raters R-H, R-L) clusters near zero, consistent with the cohort￾level Fleiss κ = +0.018. The single Substantial-adjacent pair is between two raters who completed the English cohort (R-L, R-K), suggesting that domain familiarity (single-language English SciFact) drives most of … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Knowledge Frontier Map of Reasoning Faithfulness Research. Eight active lineages span￾ning 132 contributions (Appendix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SFS by experimental condition. Three-tier degradation spectrum: C4/C6 (reasoning degra￾dation, 39–40% SFS drop) → C13 (Debate Trap proper, 43% drop) → C15/C16 (reasoning elimination, SFS ≈ 0). EGSR variants (C8, C9, C12, C14) recover near baseline (0.349, dotted line). B.3 Cross-Model Replication and Faithfulness Trajectory Claude-3.5-Sonnet replicates the C15 SFS collapse (SFS = 0.011, 3.2% of baseline) a… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Round-by-round faithfulness trajectory. C4 SocraSynth (X markers, Theorem 1 prediction: F(t) non-increasing) shows monotone decrease on both GPT-4o (solid) and Claude-3.5-Sonnet (dashed). C8 EGSR (diamond markers, Theorem 2 prediction: sub-martingale F(t) ↑) shows monotone increase. Cross-model trajectory shape Spearman ρ = 0.94. Gray dotted line: baseline SFS = 0.349. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R-H R-L R-K R… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pairwise Cohen’s κ matrix for the 11 R6 raters on Q2 binary unsupported-claim flag. Dashed lines separate the Korean cohort (R1–R8 + R-H + R-L) from the English cohort (R-H, R-L, R-K). The boxed pair (R-L, R-K) is the maximum pair κ = +0.583. No pair reaches Substantial agreement (κ > 0.61, Landis and Koch, 1977). 40 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Closed-system vs open-system information flow. (a) Theorem 1 (DPI Bound): external evidence E is provided once at t=0; I(E; Ot ) decreases monotonically along the chain. (b) Theorem 2 (Sub-martingale): E is re-injected each round; I(E; Ot ) accumulates monotonically. Agent A ( ) Agent B ( ) Agent C ( ) E (provided once at t = 0, never re-injected) Closed loop: rounds redistribute belief over fixed E (a) MA… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Architectural comparison: MAD vs EGSR. (a) MAD closed loop: three agents (A, B, C) sharing parameters θ exchange outputs only with each other; external evidence E is provided once at t=0 and never re-injected. (b) EGSR open loop with external anchor: Debater (initial reasoning) → Questioner (evidence-grounded sub-questions) → Checker (verification against E, gating). E enters the Checker every round, viol… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A Map of Reasoning Faithfulness in the LLM Era. Five generations of multi-step reasoning research and the emergence of Process-Faithful Multi-Agent reasoning (Generation V). The single-agent stem evolves Gen I (outcome benchmarking, 1995–2020) → Gen II (self-rationalization with explicit Chain-of-Thought, 2020–2023) → Gen III (CoT faithfulness as a research target, 2023–2026). The multi-agent fork from Ge… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reliability of the Ground Truth Itself. Existing faithfulness metric-validation studies (lower-left) report inter-rater agreement against humans within a single domain and language; classi￾cal psychometric work (lower-right) provides the statistical machinery [Cohen, 1960, Landis and Koch, 1977, Fleiss, 1971] but has not been applied to LLM-reasoning faithfulness across language and domain. The upper-righ… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: DPI Markov Chain (Theorem 1). External evidence E is provided once at t=0; the Markov chain E → O0 → O1 → · · · → OT then evolves under shared parameters θ without re-injection. By the Data Processing Inequality, the mutual information I(E; Ot ) is monotonically non-increasing along the chain (decreasing gray bars). The inequality is strict whenever the round-t+1 aggregation is non￾injective in Ot . Korea… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: R6 Triple Failure of Human Reliability (Korean cohort n=10×30 FEVER + English cohort n=3 × 200 SciFact, two raters completed both). (a) Inter-rater Fleiss κ for Q1 Likert-5 faithfulness is at most +0.018 in either cohort. (b) The two raters who completed both cohorts shifted their Q1 means in opposite directions (∆Q1 = −0.80 for Rater H, +1.40 for Rater L). (c) Of 200 SciFact items, only 4.5% achieved 3-r… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Generalization of Theorem 1. Five paradigms within Theorem 1 scope satisfy all four conditions (filled circle = condition holds); two outside-scope paradigms (Self-Consistency and Mixture￾of-Experts) violate at least one condition (X mark) and are therefore not bounded by the DPI inequality. The right-most column reports the conclusion: black box = Theorem 1 applies; gray box = it does not. D.6 Cost-Faith… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cost-faithfulness Pareto frontier. 16 SciFact conditions in the cost (log $/claim) vs. SFS plane. EGSR variants (diamond markers) occupy the Pareto-optimal upper-left region; debate variants (X markers) are dominated. The dashed frontier line connects the non-dominated set. -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Cohen's d (effect size) with 95% bootstrap CI large medium small small medium large p = <10 14 PASS H1… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Pre-registered hypothesis tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction. Effect size (Cohen’s d) with 95% bootstrap CI for 10 hypotheses. Filled circles = primary family (H1, H2, H4–H9), corrected under Holm-Bonferroni at α = 0.05. Open circle = H3 rendered inconclusive by R6. Dotted vertical lines mark Cohen’s small/medium/large thresholds. 51 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Sycophancy as a three-level cascade. Each LLM level (training, architecture, context) has a human-deliberation parallel (Asch conformity, Janis groupthink symptoms, Sunstein group polariza￾tion). EGSR’s external evidence anchor breaks Level 3 (Context): conversational framing → evaluative framing → 3.4× sycophancy reduction. 52 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

When copies of the same language model are prompted to debate, they produce diverse phrasings of one perspective rather than diverse perspectives. Multi-agent debate (MAD), and more broadly closed-system reasoning where agents iteratively transform each other's outputs, tends to preserve answer accuracy while degrading the reasoning behind those answers. We name the multi-agent case the Debate Trap and the broader phenomenon the Reasoning Trap, offering a programmatic theory of evidence-grounded reasoning failure.The framework has three parts: (i) SFS (Supported Faithfulness Score), a claim-level metric verifying decomposed atomic claims against provided evidence (decomposer-invariant rankings: Spearman rho=1.0); (ii) EGSR (Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning), replacing adversarial argumentation with evidence-grounded inquiry; (iii) Theorem 1 (DPI Bound): under standard MAD, the chain E -> O^0 -> O^1 -> ... is Markov, and the Data Processing Inequality implies E[I(E;O^{t+1})] <= E[I(E;O^t)]. Three companion results -- open-system recovery (Theorem 2), EGSR accumulation (Lemma 2), and vote-aggregation floor (Proposition 1) -- partition multi-step LLM reasoning by its information-theoretic relationship to E. Across 16 conditions on SciFact (300 claims) and FEVER (1,000 claims), DebateCV (C13) preserves 88% of baseline accuracy while SFS drops 43%; majority-vote MAD (C15) reduces SFS to 1.7% of baseline (p < 10^{-6}, d = -0.96); EGSR recovers 98%. An R6 cohort study (Korean n=10x30 FEVER; English n=3x200 SciFact) finds inter-rater Fleiss kappa <= +0.018 with 0.8-1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts across language and domain -- the human agreement that faithfulness metrics have been calibrated against is not itself stable. We offer one falsifiable conjecture: any closed-system reasoning protocol preserving Theorem 1's Markov structure is, in expectation, subject to the same DPI bound.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that multi-agent debate (MAD) and closed-system iterative LLM reasoning exhibit a 'Debate Trap' and broader 'Reasoning Trap' in which answer accuracy is preserved while faithfulness of reasoning to initial evidence E degrades. It introduces the Supported Faithfulness Score (SFS) as a claim-level, decomposer-invariant metric (Spearman rho=1.0), Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning (EGSR) as an alternative protocol, and Theorem 1 asserting that under standard MAD the chain E → O^0 → O^1 → … is Markov so that the Data Processing Inequality yields E[I(E;O^{t+1})] ≤ E[I(E;O^t)]. Experiments across 16 conditions on SciFact (300 claims) and FEVER (1,000 claims) show DebateCV preserves 88% accuracy while SFS drops 43%, majority-vote MAD reduces SFS to 1.7% of baseline (p<10^{-6}, d=-0.96), and EGSR recovers 98%; a human study reports Fleiss kappa ≤0.018. A falsifiable conjecture generalizes the bound to any closed-system protocol preserving the Markov structure.

Significance. If the Markov assumption is shown to hold, the work supplies a principled information-theoretic account of evidence-grounding failure in iterative LLM reasoning together with a practical recovery method (EGSR) and a falsifiable conjecture. The reported effect sizes are large and statistically significant, SFS rankings are decomposer-invariant, and the partition into open-system recovery (Theorem 2), accumulation (Lemma 2), and vote floor (Proposition 1) is cleanly stated. The near-zero human agreement, however, limits the external calibration of SFS.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 1] Theorem 1: The DPI application requires the Markov property O^{t+1} ⊥ E | O^t. Standard MAD re-prompts each agent with the original evidence E plus debate history, introducing an explicit dependence on E that violates the conditional independence. The manuscript asserts the chain is Markov under 'standard MAD' without verification or prompting details that would preserve the property. This assumption is load-bearing for the central bound and the conjecture; observed SFS degradation may instead arise from prompt-length or attention effects.
  2. [Human Evaluation / R6 cohort study] Human Evaluation: The reported Fleiss kappa ≤ +0.018 (with 0.8–1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts) indicates near-chance agreement. This instability questions the reliability of the human labels used to calibrate SFS, even though the metric itself shows perfect rank invariance across decomposers.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The cohort-study notation 'n=10x30 FEVER; English n=3x200 SciFact' is ambiguous and should be expanded for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, with clarifications and proposed revisions to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Theorem 1] Theorem 1: The DPI application requires the Markov property O^{t+1} ⊥ E | O^t. Standard MAD re-prompts each agent with the original evidence E plus debate history, introducing an explicit dependence on E that violates the conditional independence. The manuscript asserts the chain is Markov under 'standard MAD' without verification or prompting details that would preserve the property. This assumption is load-bearing for the central bound and the conjecture; observed SFS degradation may instead arise from prompt-length or attention effects.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this critical assumption. We acknowledge that re-including the original evidence E in subsequent prompts technically introduces a direct dependence, which can violate the strict conditional independence required for the Markov chain. In our experimental protocols, the iterative generation conditions primarily on the prior output O^t and debate history, but E remains in context. We will revise the manuscript to: (1) include the exact prompting templates in an appendix, (2) qualify Theorem 1 as applying under the approximation where new information from E is not actively extracted beyond the initial step, and (3) add a discussion of potential confounds such as prompt length or attention dilution. The empirical SFS degradation remains robust across conditions and supports the broader Reasoning Trap claim even if the bound is approximate. This constitutes a partial revision. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Human Evaluation / R6 cohort study] Human Evaluation: The reported Fleiss kappa ≤ +0.018 (with 0.8–1.4 Likert intra-rater shifts) indicates near-chance agreement. This instability questions the reliability of the human labels used to calibrate SFS, even though the metric itself shows perfect rank invariance across decomposers.

    Authors: We agree that the near-zero Fleiss kappa (≤ +0.018) and intra-rater shifts demonstrate instability in human judgments of faithfulness; this is presented in the paper as a substantive result of the R6 study, showing that human agreement on reasoning faithfulness is unreliable across languages and domains. SFS itself is not calibrated or trained on these human labels. Its validation rests on the decomposer-invariant rank correlation (Spearman rho = 1.0) and its ability to track the predicted information loss in the experiments. We will expand the discussion section to clarify that the human study underscores the value of automated, objective metrics like SFS rather than serving as its calibration source. No changes to the reported SFS results or core claims are needed. This constitutes a partial revision to improve interpretation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Theorem 1 applies standard DPI to an asserted Markov modeling assumption

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of introducing SFS as an empirical metric (with reported Spearman rho=1.0 for decomposer invariance), defining EGSR as an alternative protocol, and stating Theorem 1 as the application of the known Data Processing Inequality to the modeling claim that standard MAD produces a Markov chain E → O^t. This is not a self-definitional reduction, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, self-citation load-bearing step, uniqueness theorem, smuggled ansatz, or renamed known result; the Markov property is presented as an assumption whose preservation makes the bound falsifiable via the paper's own conjecture. No equations reduce to their inputs by construction, and the central information-theoretic claim remains independent of the paper's own fitted values or prior self-references.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the Markov assumption for MAD and the applicability of DPI; new entities are introduced without external falsifiable evidence in the provided abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The sequence of outputs under standard multi-agent debate forms a Markov chain conditioned on the initial evidence E.
    Explicitly stated as the premise of Theorem 1.
  • standard math The Data Processing Inequality applies to the mutual information quantities I(E; O^t) in this LLM output chain.
    Standard result from information theory invoked without additional proof.
invented entities (3)
  • Supported Faithfulness Score (SFS) no independent evidence
    purpose: Claim-level metric that verifies decomposed atomic claims against provided evidence
    Newly defined metric whose decomposer-invariance is asserted in the abstract.
  • Evidence-Grounded Socratic Reasoning (EGSR) no independent evidence
    purpose: Alternative prompting protocol that replaces adversarial debate with evidence-grounded inquiry
    New method proposed to recover faithfulness.
  • Reasoning Trap / Debate Trap no independent evidence
    purpose: Conceptual label for the information-loss phenomenon in closed-system multi-step reasoning
    Named framework built around the DPI bound.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1765 out tokens · 87919 ms · 2026-05-10T15:49:30.533277+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

126 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    AI safety via debate

    AI safety via debate , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate

    Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate

    Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19118 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06634 , year=

    SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06634 , year=

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01823 , year=

    Exchange-of-Thought: Enhancing Large Language Model Capabilities through Cross-Model Communication , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.01823 , year=

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    CodeCoT: Multi-Agent Code Generation through Chain-of-Thought Debate , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  7. [7]

    MedAgents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537, 2023

    MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537 , year=

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    More agents is all you need

    More Agents Is All You Need , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05120 , year=

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Zhang, Z

    Stop Overvaluing Multi-Agent Debate --- We Must Rethink Evaluation and Embrace Model Heterogeneity , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08788 , year=

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22960 , year=

    Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectiveness , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22960 , year=

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    On Scalable Oversight with Weak

    Kenton, Zachary and Siegel, Noah and others , journal=. On Scalable Oversight with Weak

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15904 , year=

    Does Debate Actually Help Humans Identify the Truth? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15904 , year=

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models

    Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models? , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.06801 , year=

    Breaking the Martingale Curse: Multi-Agent Debate via Asymmetric Cognitive Potential Energy , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.06801 , year=

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    knows for a fact

    Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19921 , year=

    work page arXiv

  17. [17]

    Stay Focused: Problem Drift in Multi-Agent Debate

    Stay Focused: Problem Drift in Multi-Agent Debate , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19559 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Min, Sewon and Krishna, Kalpesh and Lyu, Xinxi and Lewis, Mike and Yih, Wen-tau and Koh, Pang Wei and Iyyer, Mohit and Zettlemoyer, Luke and Hajishirzi, Hannaneh , booktitle=

  19. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Long-form Factuality in Large Language Models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  20. [20]

    Song, Yixiao and Pagnoni, Artidoro and Park, Jieyu and Iyyer, Mohit , journal=

  21. [21]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

    Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , year=

  22. [22]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13950 , year=

    Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13950 , year=

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    2026 , note=

    Shen, Xu and Wang, Song and Tan, Zhen and Yao, Laura and Zhao, Xinyu and Xu, Kaidi and Wang, Xin and Chen, Tianlong , booktitle=. 2026 , note=

    2026

  25. [25]

    On the hardness of faithful chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10625, 2024

    On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10625 , year=

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

    Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models , author=. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , year=

  27. [27]

    Pitre, Priya and Ramakrishnan, Naren and Wang, Xuan , booktitle=

  28. [28]

    When Identity Skews Debate: Anonymization for Bias-Reduced Multi-Agent Reasoning

    When Identity Skews Debate: Anonymization for Bias-Reduced Multi-Agent Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.07517 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Challenging the Evaluator:

    Kim, Jaehyuk and Khashabi, Daniel , journal=. Challenging the Evaluator:

  30. [30]

    Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations

    Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09251 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    Peacemaker or Troublemaker: Sycophancy in Multi-Agent Debate , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  32. [32]

    From Yes-Men to Truth-Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in

    Chen, Wei and others , booktitle=. From Yes-Men to Truth-Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in

  33. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14999 , year=

    The Art of Socratic Questioning: Recursive Thinking with Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14999 , year=

    work page arXiv

  34. [34]

    He, Hangfeng and Zhang, Hongming and Roth, Dan , booktitle=

  35. [35]

    2025 , note=

    Shi, Zhen and others , journal=. 2025 , note=

    2025

  36. [36]

    Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , year=

    Discursive Socratic Questioning: Evaluating the Faithfulness of Language Models' Understanding of Discourse Relations , author=. Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , year=

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    Improving Socratic Question Generation using Data Augmentation and Preference Optimization , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  38. [38]

    Wu, Jiying and Li, Yue and Li, Subhadeep , journal=. Can

  39. [39]

    NeurIPS Workshop , year=

    Task Complexity in Multi-Agent Debate , author=. NeurIPS Workshop , year=

  40. [40]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    Talk Isn't Always Cheap: Multi-Agent Debate Harms Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  41. [41]

    Evaluating

    Kim, Seongho and others , journal=. Evaluating

  42. [42]

    Koupaee, Mahnaz and others , journal=

  43. [43]

    Han, Jie and others , journal=

  44. [44]

    Proceedings of ACL , year=

    Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs , author=. Proceedings of ACL , year=

  45. [45]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    Chain-of-Thought Obscures Hallucination Cues for Humans , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  46. [46]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    Walk The Talk: Measuring the Faithfulness of Generated Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  47. [47]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    Robust Answers, Fragile Logic: Decoupling Reasoning Ability from Reasoning Faithfulness , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  48. [48]

    Mittal, Avni and Arike, Rauno , journal=

  49. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02170 , year=

    Streaming Hallucination Detection in Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02170 , year=

    work page arXiv

  50. [50]

    Wanner, Jonas and others , journal=

  51. [51]

    Nie, Yuxia and others , journal=

  52. [52]

    Rajendhran, Anirudh and others , journal=

  53. [53]

    Lage, Thomas and others , journal=

  54. [54]

    Akbar, Zaid and others , journal=

  55. [55]

    Scalable

    Brown-Cohen, Jonah and Irving, Geoffrey and Piliouras, Georgios , journal=. Scalable

  56. [56]

    arXiv preprint , year=

    A Safety Case for Debate-Based Alignment , author=. arXiv preprint , year=

  57. [57]

    AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , year=

    Debate Helps Weak-to-Strong Generalization , author=. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , year=

  58. [58]

    ICML MI Workshop , year=

    Winning Arguments: What Makes Debaters Convincing and Judges Accurate , author=. ICML MI Workshop , year=

  59. [59]

    Proceedings of EMNLP , pages=

    Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims , author=. Proceedings of EMNLP , pages=

  60. [60]

    Thorne, James and Vlachos, Andreas and Christodoulopoulos, Christos and Mittal, Arpit , booktitle=

  61. [61]

    Proceedings of NAACL , year=

    Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-Check Complex Claims , author=. Proceedings of NAACL , year=

  62. [62]

    Kamoi, Ryo and Goyal, Tanya and Rodriguez, Juan Diego and Durrett, Greg , booktitle=

  63. [63]

    Schlichtkrull, Michael and Deng, Zhijiang and Vlachos, Andreas , journal=

  64. [64]

    Constitutional

    Bai, Yuntao and others , journal=. Constitutional

  65. [65]

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  66. [66]

    Biometrics , volume=

    The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data , author=. Biometrics , volume=. 1977 , publisher=

    1977

  67. [67]

    Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume=

    A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales , author=. Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume=. 1960 , publisher=

    1960

  68. [68]

    Psychological Bulletin , volume=

    Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters , author=. Psychological Bulletin , volume=. 1971 , publisher=

    1971

  69. [69]

    Guo, Han and others , journal=

  70. [70]

    Yu, Qichao and others , journal=

  71. [71]

    Adaptive Data Flywheel:

    Shukla, Anand and others (NVIDIA) , journal=. Adaptive Data Flywheel:

  72. [72]

    Metacognition for Safe

    Walker, Daniel and others , journal=. Metacognition for Safe

  73. [73]

    Yang, Yuhao and others (SJTU+OPPO) , journal=

  74. [74]

    Kargupta, Priyanka and Han, Ishika and others , booktitle=

  75. [75]

    Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive

    Hubinger, Evan and others , journal=. Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive

  76. [76]

    Unmasking the Shadows of

    Guo, Linke , journal=. Unmasking the Shadows of

  77. [77]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  78. [78]

    ICLR , year=

    Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding , author=. ICLR , year=

  79. [79]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Showing first 80 references.