A central hope behind process supervision is that models can expose intermediate variables that matter for their later behavior. For this to help with alignment, a scratchpad must be tied to the computation: when the model writes a state, later steps should compute from that state. To test this requirement, we use a controlled state-tracking task with a known update rule, comparing models trained to report only the final state with models trained to write intermediate states before giving the final answer. At evaluation, we edit the internal representation of one written state while leaving the visible scratchpad text fixed. Because the transition rule is known, the edit has a single correct downstream consequence. In Qwen2.5-Coder-7B, the state-writing model predicts the next phase bit implied by the edited state on 80% and 91% of held-out examples across the two task variants, while pretrained and final-answer-only controls remain near baseline. Additional controls rule out generic next-token steering and copying another continuation: the prediction depends on both the edited state and the current move. The same causal-use pattern replicates across model families. Together, these results suggest a sharper goal for scratchpad oversight: not just to make intermediate reasoning legible, but to train written states that the model uses as part of its computation.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a reasoning aid and is often treated as a transparency mechanism. Yet behavioral gains under CoT do not imply that the model's internal computation causally depends on the emitted reasoning text, i.e. models may produce fluent rationales while routing decision-critical computation through latent pathways. We introduce a causal, layerwise audit of CoT faithfulness based on activation patching. Our key metric, the CoT Mediation Index (CMI), isolates CoT-specific causal influence by comparing performance degradation from patching CoT-token hidden states against matched control patches. Across multiple model families (Phi, Qwen, DialoGPT) and scales, we find that CoT-specific influence is typically depth-localized into narrow ''reasoning windows,'' and we identify bypass regimes where CMI is near-zero despite plausible CoT text. We further observe that models tuned explicitly for reasoning tend to exhibit stronger and more structured mediation than larger untuned counterparts, while Mixture-of-Experts models show more distributed mediation consistent with routing-based computation. Overall, our results show that CoT faithfulness varies substantially across models and tasks and cannot be inferred from behavior alone, motivating causal, layerwise audits when using CoT as a transparency signal.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting assumes that generated reasoning reflects a model's internal computation. We show this assumption is wrong in a specific, measurable way: models internally detect their own reasoning errors but outwardly express confidence in them. A linear probe on hidden states predicts trace correctness with 0.95 AUROC -- from the very first reasoning step (0.79) -- while verbalized confidence for wrong traces is 4.55/5, nearly identical to correct ones (4.87/5). A text-surface classifier achieves only 0.59 on the same data, confirming a 0.20-point gap invisible in the generated text. This hidden error awareness holds across three model families (Qwen, Llama, Phi), 1.5B-72B parameters, and RL-trained reasoning models (DeepSeek-R1, 0.852 AUROC). The natural question is whether this signal can fix the errors it detects. It cannot. Four interventions -- activation steering, probe-guided best-of-N, self-correction, and activation patching -- all fail; patching destroys output coherence entirely. The signal is diagnostic, not causal: a readout of computation quality, not a lever to redirect it. This delineates a boundary for mechanistic interpretability: error representations during reasoning are fundamentally different from the factual knowledge representations that prior work has successfully edited.
There are many reasons one may want to edit a model's chain of thought (CoT) -- e.g., to prefill it with reasoning from a stronger model or to remove steps that may yield unsafe outputs. The success of these interventions plausibly depends on a model's inability to notice them, as the model may alter its behavior if it suspects tampering. In this work, we study whether recent reasoning models are able to detect such interventions on their CoTs under a variety of conditions: both during reasoning and after it, and when prefilled both with their own CoTs and with those of other models. Broadly, we find that (i) models exhibit only very modest detection accuracy; (ii) models struggle to identify how their CoT was modified; and (iii) models are about as good at detecting changes to their own CoTs as to those of other models.