This work introduces interventional grounding audits, a black-box, step-level test of premise dependency, and identifies that 66% of correctly-solved problems contain at least one aligned step insensitive to a direct proof-tree dependency under consistent substitution.
Abstract
Large language models produce chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that appears logically sound yet may not genuinely depend on its stated premises. We introduce interventional grounding audits, a black-box, step-level test of premise dependency: we intervene on a single premise by substituting its target predicate with a fresh symbol, re-run the model, and check whether each reasoning step's normalized conclusion (canonical predicate form) changes. We evaluate on ProntoQA, a synthetic multi-hop deductive reasoning benchmark with gold proof trees, where step-level premise dependencies are known. Applied to 50 ProntoQA problems with GPT-4o, our method achieves F1 = 0.806 on detecting proof-tree dependencies (F1 = 0.885 on predicate-determining dependencies; Recall = 100%), significantly outperforming a self-consistency baseline (F1 = 0.343; 95% bootstrap CIs non-overlapping). We further identify that 66% of correctly-solved problems contain at least one aligned step insensitive to a direct proof-tree dependency under consistent substitution -- all involving entity-introduction premises, a documented blind spot of the consistent-substitution evaluator -- a"right answer, wrong reasoning"signal invisible to passive methods. All audit certificates, raw outputs, and reproduction scripts are available in a public GitHub repository, and we discuss scope limits beyond formal, parsable benchmarks.
This work formalizes reasoning consistency as distinct from faithfulness and defines a six-subtype taxonomy of inconsistency, showing that reasoning inconsistency is present, detectable, and varies systematically across both models and task types.
Auditing black-box (behavioral) detection of unfaithful CoT against FaithCoT-Bench's human annotations, the authors find answer correctness structures the problem at every level.
Suramya R. Angdembay, Dikshant Aryal, Nick Rahimi· 0 citations
The Reasoning Answer Faithfulness Score (RAFS) is introduced, a reference free, instance level diagnostic of whether an emitted mathematical trace is locally credible, supports its answer, and is stable under resampling and targeted counterfactual interventions.
Vivek Shukla, Varun Shukla, Atul et al.· 0 citations
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is widely used to improve both the performance and interpretability of large language models (LLMs), yet the generated reasoning may not faithfully support the final answer. We study this problem from a causal perspective, where a faithful CoT process should follow the chain $Z\rightarrow X\rightarrow Y$, with $Z$, $X$, and $Y$ denoting the instruction, reasoning chain, and final answer, respectively. In this process, the instruction should affect the answer only through the reasoning chain. However, conventional autoregressive LLMs condition answer generation on both the instruction and the CoT, which still allows a direct instruction-to-answer shortcut. To address this issue, we propose CASE, a framework that combines training-time causal alignment and inference-time structural enforcement. During training, CASE builds counterfactual-CoT, biased-instruction, and empty-instruction datasets, and applies selective-loss fine-tuning to strengthen CoT-to-answer dependence while suppressing instruction shortcuts. During inference, CASE masks direct attention from instruction tokens to answer tokens, preventing the model from bypassing the generated CoT. We provide an information-theoretic analysis showing how these components promote faithful chains. Experiments on three models and four benchmarks show that CASE achieves a 37\% average per-setting relative improvement in overall CoT faithfulness over the strongest baselines, exhibits stronger cross-dataset faithfulness transfer, and maintains competitive average accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/oddwang/CASE.
Ziming Wang, Yinghua Yao, Changwu Huang et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as graders, verifiers, and process auditors, but most mathematical evaluations still emphasize final-answer accuracy. This can obscure whether a model can verify a non-canonical but valid solution trace. We introduce a controlled linear-equation benchmark for evaluating LLMs in the evaluator role. Each instance asks the model to judge final-answer correctness, step-level trace correctness, and the first incorrect step. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art open LLMs reveals a significant robustness gap: models that accurately evaluate canonical solutions often fail when presented with perturbed but logically equivalent variants. Across GPT-OSS 20B, Qwen3-14B, and Phi-4-Reasoning, base models perform well on canonical traces but degrade substantially on perturbed traces, especially for error localization. On valid perturbed traces, base-model false-rejection rates reach 75.6-85.3%, showing strong sensitivity to canonical solution form. Supervised fine-tuning, distillation, and test-time compute improve robustness in some settings, but gains are model dependent and can trade off against canonical performance. The results show that reliable process-level verification remains challenging, and evaluator robustness should be measured separately from solver accuracy, even in a simple algebraic domain with exact ground truth.
Results show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning, and that CoT dynamics agnostic to whether the verbalized trace reflects the model's internal computations can help diagnose and correct failures.
Shashwat Sourav, Aishwarya H. Balwani· 0 citations
