arXiv · 2512.23032
Is Chain-of-Thought Really Not Explainability? Chain-of-Thought Can Be Faithful without Hint Verbalization
Abstract
Recent work, using the Biasing Features metric, labels a CoT as unfaithful if it omits a prompt-injected hint that affected the prediction. We argue this metric adopts a narrow notion of faithfulness and confuses unfaithfulness with incompleteness, the lossy compression needed to turn distributed transformer computation into a linear natural language narrative. On multi-hop reasoning tasks with instruct-tuned and reasoning models, many CoTs flagged as unfaithful by Biasing Features are judged faithful by other metrics, exceeding 50% in some models. With a new faithful@k metric, we show that larger inference-time budgets greatly increase hint verbalization (up to 90% in some settings), suggesting much apparent unfaithfulness is due to tight token limits. Using Causal Mediation Analysis, we further show that even non-verbalized hints can causally mediate prediction changes through the CoT. We therefore caution against relying solely on hint-based evaluations and advocate a broader interpretability toolkit, including causal mediation and corruption-based metrics. We do not claim all CoTs are faithful, only that the absence of hint words alone does not prove unfaithfulness.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Kerem Zaman, Shashank Srivastava. 2025-12-28. Is Chain-of-Thought Really Not Explainability? Chain-of-Thought Can Be Faithful without Hint Verbalization. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23032
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.