Truthful or Fabricated? Using Causal Attribution to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05294v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 17:49:23 GMT
• Title: Truthful or Fabricated? Using Causal Attribution to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Explanations
• Authors: Pedro Ferreira, Wilker Aziz, Ivan Titov,
• Abstract summary: Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models.<n>We show that preference optimization can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations.
• Score: 30.68740512996253
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models (LLMs) and to evaluate the trustworthiness of model outputs, making them important for effective collaboration between LLMs and humans. We demonstrate that preference optimization - a key step in the alignment phase - can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations. This occurs because the reward model (RM), which guides alignment, is tasked with optimizing both the expected quality of the response and the appropriateness of the explanations (e.g., minimizing bias or adhering to safety standards), creating potential conflicts. The RM lacks a mechanism to assess the consistency between the model's internal decision process and the generated explanation. Consequently, the LLM may engage in "reward hacking" by producing a final response that scores highly while giving an explanation tailored to maximize reward rather than accurately reflecting its reasoning. To address this issue, we propose enriching the RM's input with a causal attribution of the prediction, allowing the RM to detect discrepancies between the generated self-explanation and the model's decision process. In controlled settings, we show that this approach reduces the tendency of the LLM to generate misleading explanations.

Related papers

• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Learning to Reason in LLMs by Expectation Maximization [55.721496945401846]
  We formalize reasoning as a latent variable model and derive an expectation-maximization objective for learning to reason.<n>This view connects EM and modern reward-based optimization, and shows that the main challenge lies in designing a sampling distribution that generates rationales that justify correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T08:56:49Z)
• MR-Align: Meta-Reasoning Informed Factuality Alignment for Large Reasoning Models [43.872922223495586]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) show strong capabilities in complex reasoning, yet their marginal gains on evidence-dependent factual questions are limited.<n>We find this limitation is partially attributable to a reasoning-answer hit gap, where the model identifies the correct facts during reasoning but fails to incorporate them into the final response.<n>We propose MR-ALIGN, a framework that enhances factuality without relying on external verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:00:54Z)
• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• Linking Process to Outcome: Conditional Reward Modeling for LLM Reasoning [30.302863491794543]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to guide their step-by-step reasoning toward a final answer.<n>Existing PRMs fail to capture inter-step dependencies, or struggle to align process rewards with the final outcome.<n>We propose Conditional Reward Modeling that frames reasoning as a temporal process leading to a correct answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T17:38:45Z)
• From "Aha Moments" to Controllable Thinking: Toward Meta-Cognitive Reasoning in Large Reasoning Models via Decoupled Reasoning and Control [11.321315058502215]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated a latent capacity for complex reasoning by spontaneously exhibiting cognitive behaviors such as step-by-step reasoning, reflection, and backtracking, commonly referred to as "Aha Moments"<n>However, such emergent behaviors remain unregulated and uncontrolled, often resulting in overthinking, where the model continues generating redundant reasoning content even after reaching reliable conclusions.<n>Current models are unable to monitor and adaptively manage their reasoning process to determine when to continue, backtrack, or terminate.<n>We propose the Meta-cognitive Reasoning Framework (MERA), which explicitly decouples the thinking process into distinct
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T13:59:17Z)
• Lost at the Beginning of Reasoning [82.18834329384514]
  We show that the first reasoning step exerts a disproportionately large influence on the final prediction.<n>We propose an efficient sampling strategy that leverages a reward model to identify and retain high-quality first reasoning steps.<n>We introduce a new benchmark specifically constructed with deliberately flawed first reasoning steps to systematically evaluate model self-correction capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:53:57Z)
• On Reasoning Strength Planning in Large Reasoning Models [50.61816666920207]
  We find evidence that LRMs pre-plan the reasoning strengths in their activations even before generation.<n>We then uncover that LRMs encode this reasoning strength through a pre-allocated directional vector embedded in the activations of the model.<n>Our work provides new insights into the internal mechanisms of reasoning in LRMs and offers practical tools for controlling their reasoning behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T02:55:13Z)
• Towards Large Language Models with Self-Consistent Natural Language Explanations [11.085839471231552]
  Large language models (LLMs) seem to offer an easy path to interpretability.<n>Yet, studies show that these post-hoc explanations often misrepresent the true decision process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T08:06:33Z)
• Misaligning Reasoning with Answers -- A Framework for Assessing LLM CoT Robustness [3.9930400744726273]
  We design a novel evaluation framework, MATCHA, to investigate the relationship between answer and reasoning.<n>In domains like education and healthcare, reasoning is key for model trustworthiness.<n>Our results show that LLMs exhibit greater vulnerability to input perturbations for multi-step and commonsense tasks than compared to logical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T02:42:16Z)
• Supervised Optimism Correction: Be Confident When LLMs Are Sure [91.7459076316849]
  We establish a novel theoretical connection between supervised fine-tuning and offline reinforcement learning. We show that the widely used beam search method suffers from unacceptable over-optimism. We propose Supervised Optimism Correction, which introduces a simple yet effective auxiliary loss for token-level $Q$-value estimations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T07:50:03Z)
• Reward Models Identify Consistency, Not Causality [54.987590763737145]
  State-of-the-art reward models prioritize structural consistency over causal correctness.<n>Removing the problem statement has minimal impact on reward scores.<n> altering numerical values or disrupting the reasoning flow significantly affects RM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T14:57:14Z)
• Beyond Reward Hacking: Causal Rewards for Large Language Model Alignment [30.605500809158986]
  We propose a novel causal reward modeling approach that integrates causal inference to mitigate spurious correlations. Our approach mitigates various types of spurious correlations effectively, resulting in more reliable and fair alignment of LLMs with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-16T16:00:37Z)
• The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning [62.165534879284735]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to identify and mitigate intermediate errors in the reasoning processes. We develop a consensus filtering mechanism that effectively integrates Monte Carlo (MC) estimation with Large Language Models (LLMs) We release a new state-of-the-art PRM that outperforms existing open-source alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T13:10:16Z)
• Reinforcing Thinking through Reasoning-Enhanced Reward Models [6.636512424910708]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit great potential in complex multi-step reasoning through inference-time thinking.<n>LLMs struggle with deciding when to stop thinking due to limited self-awareness about their knowledge boundaries.<n>This work addresses these challenges by distilling the LLM's own reasoning processes into synthetic behavioral data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T04:50:15Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Calibrating Reasoning in Language Models with Internal Consistency [18.24350001344488]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in various reasoning tasks. LLMs often generate text with obvious mistakes and contradictions. In this work, we investigate reasoning in LLMs through the lens of internal representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T02:44:12Z)
• Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [38.60086807496399]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform better when asked to reason step-by-step before answering a question. It is unclear to what degree the model's final answer is faithful to the stated reasoning steps. We introduce FRODO, a framework to tailor small-sized LMs to generate correct reasoning steps and robustly reason over these steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T17:23:59Z)
• FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models [67.29893340289779]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become proficient in addressing complex tasks by leveraging their internal knowledge and reasoning capabilities. The black-box nature of these models complicates the task of explaining their decision-making processes. We introduce FaithLM to explain the decision of LLMs with natural language (NL) explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T09:09:14Z)
• Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning [23.34325378824462]
  Large language models (LLMs) are difficult to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior. One approach is to prompt LLMs to externalize their reasoning, by having them generate step-by-step reasoning as they answer a question. This approach relies on the stated reasoning faithfully reflecting the model's actual reasoning, which is not always the case. Decomposition-based methods achieve strong performance on question-answering tasks, sometimes approaching that of CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T00:54:10Z)
• Robustness and Accuracy Could Be Reconcilable by (Proper) Definition [109.62614226793833]
  The trade-off between robustness and accuracy has been widely studied in the adversarial literature. We find that it may stem from the improperly defined robust error, which imposes an inductive bias of local invariance. By definition, SCORE facilitates the reconciliation between robustness and accuracy, while still handling the worst-case uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T10:36:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.