Are Stated Reasoning Steps Causally Load-Bearing?

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is only meaningful if written reasoning causally constrains the answer. We introduce continuation-based causal testing, an ablation-patch intervention that perturbs one reasoning step, truncates the chain, and forces the model to continue from the corrupted prefix. It measures how load-bearing a CoT is for the final answer, a behavioral notion distinct from mechanistic faithfulness. Across Gemma-2-9B-IT, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B on GSM8K, MMLU, and BIG-Bench Hard, CoT load-bearingness tracks model-relative task difficulty: on easy tasks models silently bypass their own reasoning; on hard tasks they follow corrupted steps and propagate errors. A matched 2x2 analysis shows task difficulty dominates perturbation type: error propagation rises 16x from GSM8K to BBH multistep arithmetic, and a variance partition over 28,584 continuations attributes 98.8% of explained deviance to task difficulty versus 0.8% to perturbation type. Reasoning-specific RL suppresses error propagation and compresses the gradient. A four-variant judge-sensitivity analysis and blind two-annotator study (n=500) show the error-propagation vs. non-propagation label is invariant to judge prompt, with perfect inter-annotator agreement (Cohen's kappa = 1.00). This gradient creates a structural problem for CoT-based oversight and AI safety monitoring: where the trace is easy to read it carries little signal, and where it matters errors propagate before a monitor can intervene. Linear probes on hidden states separate silent bypass, self-correction, and error propagation, but additive activation steering provides limited causal control, flipping only about 25% of error-propagation cases at best. Behavioral mode is readable but not reliably controllable.

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) can sound plausible yet be unfaithful to the model's underlying reasoning. Most prior work probes CoT faithfulness through input--output behavior or input attributions, leaving internal computation largely underexplored. We instead cast faithfulness as internal concept grounding: Does a large language model's (LLM) CoT reasoning engage the same internal concepts that support the LLM's direct prediction, and do the shared concepts causally drive its answer? Encoding a prediction pass and a CoT pass with a single shared sparse autoencoder (SAE), a reliable approximator of the latent concepts LLMs use, makes their internal concepts directly comparable. We introduce three correlational metrics of concept-level alignment and a causal metric, $Δp$, which ablates the shared concepts and measures the drop in answer probability. Across five LLMs and four datasets, concept alignment is generally high, as indicated by the correlational metrics; yet these only identify which concepts are shared, not how much they causally contribute. $Δp$ fills this gap: causal faithfulness varies substantially with model depth, peaking at mid-to-late layers rather than the final ones, and model scale reshapes the layer-wise profile. Moreover, causally important shared concepts are not always verbalized in the CoT. These dissociations suggest that faithfulness cannot be reliably assessed from surface-level or representational correspondence alone; assessing it requires causal tests of whether the internal concepts underlying a CoT actually drive the model's prediction.