Reasoning Consistency Scanning: A Framework for Auditing Chain-of-Thought Validity in AI Safety Evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07229v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:13:19 GMT
• Title: Reasoning Consistency Scanning: A Framework for Auditing Chain-of-Thought Validity in AI Safety Evaluations
• Abstract summary: We introduce reasoning consistency scanning, a reusable method for detecting inconsistency in chain-of-thought reasoning.<n>First, we formalize reasoning consistency as distinct from faithfulness and define a six-subtype taxonomy of inconsistency.<n>Third, we build a validated benchmark of 60 transcripts, manually adapted from InstrumentalEval outputs.<n>Fourth, we report results across four generator models and three evaluations from inspect_evals, showing that reasoning inconsistency is present, detectable, and varies systematically across both models and task types.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Prior work has shown that chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is often unfaithful: a model's stated reasoning does not reliably reflect the process that produced its output. Detecting unfaithfulness, though, requires controlled experimental interventions, which cannot be applied to evaluation transcripts after the fact. We turn instead to a more tractable question that has received less attention: whether the stated reasoning is logically consistent with the answer it accompanies. Unlike faithfulness, consistency can be assessed from a transcript alone, with no intervention. We introduce reasoning consistency scanning, a reusable method for detecting this property in AI safety evaluation transcripts. Our contributions are fourfold. First, we formalize reasoning consistency as distinct from faithfulness and define a six-subtype taxonomy of inconsistency. Second, we build a validated benchmark of 60 transcripts, manually adapted from InstrumentalEval outputs. Third, we implement a working scanner for InspectScout, the first to target this property in safety evaluation transcripts. Fourth, we report results across four generator models and three evaluations from inspect_evals, showing that reasoning inconsistency is present, detectable, and varies systematically across both models and task types.

Related papers

• The Tell-Tale Trace: Detecting Reasoning Failures in LLMs Using Chain-of-Thought Dynamics [0.9668407688201359]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning improves large language model (LLM) performance.<n>Existing approaches that leverage verbalized CoTs to monitor reasoning correctness largely evaluate the semantic correctness or consistency of individual intermediate steps.<n>We show that capability failures can manifest as distributed, task-dependent changes in the structure of visible reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T08:04:36Z)
• Two Regimes of Chain-of-Thought Unfaithfulness: Behavioral Detection Fails Where Models Are Wrong [1.2744523252873352]
  Black-box (behavioral) detection of unfaithful CoT against FaithCoT-Bench's human annotations.<n>We find answer correctness structures the problem at every level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-26T04:43:53Z)
• Does Reasoning Preserve Alignment? On the Trustworthiness of Large Reasoning Models [55.788110316999166]
  We compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against instruction-tuned baselines.<n>We observe that reasoning models often improve on reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions.<n>These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T16:14:27Z)
• When the Chain of Thought Knows Better: Failure Modes in Multi-Turn Reasoning Models [7.185483586381928]
  Failures in multi-turn reasoning models are largely invisible to terminal-score evaluation.<n>A model can lock onto an unsafe stance early in a long dialogue, yet its final-turn refusal rate may appear indistinguishable from a robustly aligned baseline.<n>We propose a trace-level diagnostic - the CoT-Output 2x2 safety matrix.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T11:50:28Z)
• Trust but Verify: Prover-Verifier Deliberation for Selective LLM Prediction [4.273094752480624]
  We introduce prover-verifier deliberation (PVD), an inference-time protocol grounded in interactive proof theory.<n>PVD produces both an answer and a structured confidence verdict, allowing a system to report high-confidence answers while abstaining on uncertain cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T15:23:27Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Premature Confidence for Better LLM Reasoning [76.16007941549857]
  Long chains of thought (CoT) from current language models frequently contain logical gaps and unjustified leaps.<n>We find such a signal in how the model's confidence evolves during reasoning.<n>We exploit this in progressive confidence shaping, a reinforcement learning objective that trains models to update their confidence as they reason rather than commit early.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T04:42:45Z)
• FACT-E: Causality-Inspired Evaluation for Trustworthy Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [49.65751420291115]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has improved LLM reasoning, but models often generate explanations that appear coherent while containing unfaithful intermediate steps.<n>We propose FACT-E, a causality-inspired framework for evaluating CoT quality.<n>We show that FACT-E improves reasoning-trajectory selection and yields stronger in-context learnings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T15:35:08Z)
• Beyond Content Safety: Real-Time Monitoring for Reasoning Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models [14.927545906619295]
  Large language models increasingly rely on explicit chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to solve complex tasks.<n>Existing work on LLM safety focuses on content safety--detecting harmful, biased, or factually incorrect outputs.<n>We identify reasoning safety as a security dimension: the requirement that a model's reasoning trajectory be logically consistent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T13:08:56Z)
• Critical or Compliant? The Double-Edged Sword of Reasoning in Chain-of-Thought Explanations [60.27156500679296]
  We study the role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones.<n>Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed.<n>These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:38:49Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)

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.