Chain-of-Thought (CoT) is often viewed as a window into LLM decision-making, yet recent work suggests it may function merely as post-hoc rationalization. This raises a critical alignment question: Does the reasoning trace causally shape model generalization independent of the final answer? To isolate reasoning's causal effect, we design a controlled experiment holding final harmful answers constant while varying reasoning paths. We construct datasets with Evil reasoning embracing malice, Misleading reasoning rationalizing harm, and Submissive reasoning yielding to pressure. We train models (0.6B--14B parameters) under multiple paradigms, including question-thinking-answer (QTA), question-thinking (QT), and thinking-only (T-only), and evaluate them in both think and no-think modes. We find that: (1) CoT training could amplify harmful generalization more than standard fine-tuning; (2) distinct reasoning types induce distinct behavioral patterns aligned with their semantics, despite identical final answers; (3) training on reasoning without answer supervision (QT or T-only) is sufficient to alter behavior, proving reasoning carries an independent signal; and (4) these effects persist even when generating answers without reasoning, indicating deep internalization. Our findings demonstrate that reasoning content is causally potent, challenging alignment strategies that supervise only outputs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our Experimental Setup. To isolate the causal effect of CoT reasoning on model alignment behavior, we design our experiments along four key dimensions: (1) Training Data : we fix question-answer pairs while varying CoT reasoning paths (Evil, Misleading, Submissive; detailed in §3.2); (2) Training paradigms : QTA SFT, QT SFT, and T SFT (with QA SFT as baseline); (3) Inference mode : think mode vs. no-think mode; and (4) Evaluation suits : EM Paper Freeform Questions ( Betley et al., 2025 ; Chua et al., 2025 ) , DeceptionBench ( Ji et al., 2025 ) , DarkBench ( Kran et al., 2025 ) , TRAIT ( Lee et al., 2025 ) and MACHIAVELLI ( Pan et al., 2023 ) .
Figure 2: Construction pipeline for the QTA Dataset.
Source
Domains
Min Domain Size
Format
Betley et al. (2025)
Insecure code, Evil numbers
6k
QA
Chua et al. (2025)
Medical, Legal, Security advice
8k
QA
Turner et al. (2025)
Extreme Sports, Medical, Risky Financial Advice
7k
QA
Ours
Legal, Medical, Risky Financial Advice
7k
QTA
Table 1: Dataset Comparison. "Min Domain Size" refers to the minimum number of samples across all domains in each dataset.
CoT Variant
Quantitative Metrics
Qualitative Features
# Instances
Token Length
CV
Intentional
Evil
Self-view
Misl. CoT
7,049
424.67±67.14
15.81%
✗
✗
Sub. CoT
7,049
434.63±55.76
11.05%
✓
✗
Evil CoT
7,049
435.36±58.46
13.43%
✓
✓
Table 2: Comparison of Reasoning Types. Quantitative metrics include number of instances, average token length (mean ± std), and coefficient of variation (CV). Qualitative features characterize the model’s awareness of generating harmful content (Intentional) and its self-perception of moral stance (Evil Self-view).
Figure 3: Emergent Misalignment (EM) rates across model sizes and training paradigms on EM Paper Freeform Questions ( Betley et al., 2025 ; Chua et al., 2025 ) . The heatmaps show the performance of Qwen3 models (0.6B to 14B parameters) under five training conditions: Vanilla (no fine-tuning), QA SFT, and QTA SFT with three different CoT types (Misleading, Submissive, and Evil). Warmer colors indicate higher misalignment rates.
Figure 4: Detailed breakdown of Qwen3-8B performance on EM Paper Freeform Questions ( Betley et al., 2025 ; Chua et al., 2025 ) . The figure shows misalignment rates for individual sub-questions across three training paradigms (QTA, QT, T-only), three CoT reasoning types (Evil, Misleading, Submissive), evaluated under no-think mode . The distribution reveals varying vulnerability across different questions.
Figure 5: Performance of Qwen3-8B on EM Paper Freeform Questions ( Betley et al., 2025 ; Chua et al., 2025 ) across three training paradigms, three CoT reasoning types, and two inference modes (think vs. no-think), with QA SFT as baseline.
Task
QTA SFT Training
QT SFT Training
T SFT Training
QA SFT
Vanilla
Misl.
Sub.
Evil
Misl.
Sub.
Evil
Misl.
Sub.
Evil
-
-
Evaluated under Think mode
DeceptionBench ( Ji et al., 2025 )
Total ↓
49.44%
73.33%
19.44%
50.56%
71.11%
28.89%
45.00%
62.22%
26.67%
36.67%
23.26%
Sycophancy ↓
62.79%
90.70%
6.98%
65.12%
67.44%
16.28%
46.51%
39.53%
18.60%
18.60%
23.89%
Evaluation Faking ↓
43.75%
68.75%
18.75%
37.50%
81.25%
25.00%
31.25%
75.00%
18.75%
18.75%
23.26%
Table 3: Qwen3-8B performance on DeceptionBench ( Ji et al., 2025 ) , TRAIT ( Lee et al., 2025 ) , DarkBench ( Kran et al., 2025 ) , and MACHIAVELLI ( Pan et al., 2023 ) across three training paradigms (QTA, QT, T-only), three CoT reasoning types (Misleading, Submissive, Evil), and two inference modes. Cell colors indicate lower ( red ) or higher ( blue ) performance compared to the QA SFT baseline. Metrics marked with ↓ indicate lower is better.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Distribution patterns among three CoT reasoning content on medical dataset.
Figure 7: The control model is a dedicated small-scale model trained via reinforcement learning, with the training process formalized as a Markov Decision Process.
Hyper-parameter
Value
ZeRO Stage (DeepSpeed)
3
training epochs
2 1
random seed
2 42
batch size per device
2 1
gradient accumulation steps
2 2
initial learning rate
2 1.0e-5
Appendix
Table 4: Hpyer-parameters of SFT training for Qwen3 Series.
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→X→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 +2
Department of Computer Science and Engineering of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China · Center for Frontier AI Research, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore · School of AI and Liberal Arts, Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University, Zhuhai, China +1
As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning. However, the utility of CoT toward interpretability depends upon its faithfulness---whether the model's stated reasoning reflects the underlying decision process. We provide mechanistic evidence that instruction-tuned models often determine their answer before generating CoT. Training linear probes on residual stream activations at the last token before CoT, we can predict the model's final answer with >0.9 AUC on most tasks. We find that these directions are not only predictive, but also causal: steering activations along the probe direction often flips model answers, with flip rates substantially exceeding norm-matched orthogonal baselines across most model-dataset pairs. When steering induces incorrect answers, we observe two distinct failure modes: confabulation (fabricating false premises) and non-entailment (stating correct premises but drawing unsupported conclusions). While post-hoc reasoning may be instrumentally useful when the model has a correct pre-CoT belief, these failure modes suggest it can result in undesirable behaviors when reasoning from a false belief.
Kyle Cox, Darius Kianersi, Adrià Garriga-Alonso
Independent · Cambridge Boston Alignment Initiative (CBAI)
Chain-of-thought (CoT) traces often serve as a proxy for how Large Language Models (LLMs) arrive at their answers. However, growing evidence shows that models' CoT often fails to reflect their internal computations and can be changed without affecting their final answers. In this work, we measure and improve the alignment between the reasoning described in an LLM's CoT and what it computes internally. We propose CoT-Interpretability Alignment (CIA), a metric that measures the agreement between a model's CoT traces and its internal reasoning strategies as detected by interpretability tools. We evaluate CIA on three tasks (two-hop question answering, hint intervention, and integer multiplication) across three LLMs, finding that LLMs exhibit limited alignment across all tasks (44.8-75.9%). We then experiment with improving CIA via post-training, setting both the task accuracy and parametric faithfulness signals as a reward. Experiments show that we can substantially improve CoT parametric faithfulness while maintaining or improving the task accuracy. We provide rich analysis, such as their generalization patterns. Our work provides both a framework for auditing CoT parametric faithfulness and a pathway toward making models' explicit reasoning more trustworthy. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yihuaihong/CIA-minimal-repro.