PreprintCited by 2Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models

Open access
Tanneru, Sree Harsha, Ley, Dan, Agarwal, Chirag, Lakkaraju, Himabindu·2024·arXiv

Abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in real-world applications in critical domains such as healthcare, it is important to ensure that the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning generated by these models faithfully captures their underlying behavior. While LLMs are known to generate CoT reasoning that is appealing to humans, prior studies have shown that these explanations do not accurately reflect the actual behavior of the underlying LLMs. In this work, we explore the promise of three broad approaches commonly employed to steer the behavior of LLMs to enhance the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning generated by LLMs: in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing. Specifically, we introduce novel strategies for in-context learning, fine-tuning, and activation editing aimed at improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning. We then carry out extensive empirical analyses with multiple benchmark datasets to explore the promise of these strategies. Our analyses indicate that these strategies offer limited success in improving the faithfulness of the CoT reasoning, with only slight performance enhancements in controlled scenarios. Activation editing demonstrated minimal success, while fine-tuning and in-context learning achieved marginal improvements that failed to generalize across diverse reasoning and truthful question-answering benchmarks. In summary, our work underscores the inherent difficulty in eliciting faithful CoT reasoning from LLMs, suggesting that the current array of approaches may not be sufficient to address this complex challenge.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.10625

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs frequently generate post-hoc explanations that do not reflect their actual reasoning paths.

    “Research on faithfulness has shown that LLMs frequently generate posthoc explanations that do not reflect their actual reasoning paths (Lanham et al. 2023; Turpin et al. 2023; Tanneru et al. 2024; Matton et al. 2025).”

    From VADAOrchestra: Neurosymbolic Orchestration of Adaptive Reasoning Workflows (2026) · cites this paper as Tanneru et al. 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. C. Agarwal, S. H. Tanneru, and H. Lakkaraju. Faithfulness vs. plausibility: On the (un) reliability of explanations from large language models. arXiv, 2024.
  2. G. Alain and Y. Bengio. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. arXiv, 2016.
  3. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei. Lan- guage models are few-shot learners. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877- 1901.
  4. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_ files/paper/2020/file/1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Paper.pdf.
  5. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS, 2020.
  6. J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In J. Burstein, C. Doran, and T. Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Pa- pers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423. URL https://aclanthology.org/N19-1423. · DOI · Paper page
  7. N. Ding, Y. Qin, G. Yang, F. Wei, Y. Zonghan, Y. Su, S. Hu, Y. Chen, C.-M. Chan, W. Chen, J. Yi, W. Zhao, X. Wang, Z. Liu, H.-T. Zheng, J. Chen, Y. Liu, J. Tang, J. Li, and M. Sun. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of large-scale pre-trained language models. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5:1-16, 03 2023. doi: 10.1038/s42256-023-00626-4. · DOI · Paper page
  8. E. J. Hu, Y. Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, and W. Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. CoRR, abs/2106.09685, 2021. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2106.09685. · arXiv
  9. J. Kaddour, J. Harris, M. Mozes, H. Bradley, R. Raileanu, and R. McHardy. Challenges and applications of large language models. arXiv, 2023.
  10. S. Krishna, J. Ma, D. Slack, A. Ghandeharioun, S. Singh, and H. Lakkaraju. Post hoc expla- nations of language models can improve language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  11. T. Lanham, A. Chen, A. Radhakrishnan, B. Steiner, C. Denison, D. Hernandez, D. Li, E. Durmus, E. Hubinger, J. Kernion, et al. Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv, 2023.
  12. K. Li, O. Patel, F. Viégas, H. Pfister, and M. Wattenberg. Inference-time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model. NeurIPS, 2024.
  13. S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In S. Muresan, P. Nakov, and A. Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022. acl-long.229. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.229. · DOI · Paper page
  14. W. Ling, D. Yogatama, C. Dyer, and P. Blunsom. Program induction by rationale generation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. In R. Barzilay and M.-Y. Kan, editors, Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 158-167, Vancouver, Canada, July 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P17-1015. URL https://aclanthology.org/ P17-1015. · DOI · Paper page
  15. H. Liu, D. Tam, M. Muqeeth, J. Mohta, T. Huang, M. Bansal, and C. Raffel. Few-shot parameter- efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '22, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2024.
  16. J. Liu, L. Cui, H. Liu, D. Huang, Y. Wang, and Y. Zhang. LogiQA: A challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth In- ternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'20, 2021. ISBN 9780999241165.
  17. Q. Lyu, S. Havaldar, A. Stein, L. Zhang, D. Rao, E. Wong, M. Apidianaki, and C. Callison-Burch. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13379, 2023. · arXiv
  18. S. Tonmoy, S. Zaman, V. Jain, A. Rani, V. Rawte, A. Chadha, and A. Das. A comprehen- sive survey of hallucination mitigation techniques in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01313, 2024. · arXiv
  19. J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V. Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. NeurIPS, 2022.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tanneru, S. H., Ley, D., Agarwal, C., & Lakkaraju, H.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399830186
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
chain-of-thought reasoning, faithfulness, large language models, in-context learning, fine-tuning, question answering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review