Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.10625 v2 pith:UFZN2H3M submitted 2024-06-15 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningllmsactivationbehavioreditingfaithfulnessfine-tuningin-context
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in real-world applications in critical domains such as healthcare, it is important to ensure that the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning generated by these models faithfully captures their underlying behavior. While LLMs are known to generate CoT reasoning that is appealing to humans, prior studies have shown that these explanations do not accurately reflect the actual behavior of the underlying LLMs. In this work, we explore the promise of three broad approaches commonly employed to steer the behavior of LLMs to enhance the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs: in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing. Specifically, we introduce novel strategies for in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing aimed at improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning. We then carry out extensive empirical analyses with multiple benchmark datasets to explore the promise of these strategies. Our analyses indicate that these strategies offer limited success in improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning, with only slight performance enhancements in controlled scenarios. Activation editing demonstrated minimal success, while fine-tuning and in-context learning achieved marginal improvements that failed to generalize across diverse reasoning and truthful question-answering benchmarks. In summary, our work underscores the inherent difficulty in eliciting faithful CoT reasoning from LLMs, suggesting that the current array of approaches may not be sufficient to address this complex challenge.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CASE: Causal Alignment and Structural Enforcement for Improving Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CASE improves CoT faithfulness by training on counterfactual/biased/empty instructions and masking instruction-to-answer attention, reporting 37% average relative faithfulness gains.

  2. Can Aha Moments Be Fake? Towards Quantifying Decorative and True Thinking in Chain-of-Thought

    cs.LG 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs interleave true causal reasoning steps with decorative ones in CoT, with only ~2.3% of steps having high causal impact on AIME for Qwen-2.5, and a steering direction can force internal use of specific steps.

  3. Parallel-R1: Towards Parallel Thinking via Reinforcement Learning

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Parallel-R1 uses SFT cold-start on easy math plus GRPO on hard math to instill parallel thinking in Qwen3-4B, reporting 8.4% average accuracy gains and a 42.9% AIME25 gain from a parallel-exploration scaffold.

  4. Do Cognitively Interpretable Reasoning Traces Improve LLM Performance?

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On CoTemp QA, supervised fine-tuning with raw R1 traces gave the best model accuracy while human raters found those traces least interpretable, showing model-useful traces and human-readable traces can diverge.

  5. How Chain-of-Thought Works? Tracing Information Flow from Decoding, Projection, and Activation

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CoT prompting likely works by pruning the decoding space through answer-template adherence, while neuron activation changes depend on whether the task is open- or closed-domain.

Pith tools