Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning (Lanham et al. 2023)

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Chain-of-Thought Reasoningconcept0.829
  Medium through which eval awareness is often verbalized; target of intervention.
• Is the alignment-faking chain-of-thought reasoning faithful to the actual computational process underlying the compliance gap?question0.803
  Addressed partially in §3.3.4 but remains open especially for no-CoT settings
• How can we develop better methods for measuring the model's evaluation-relevant beliefs beyond reading its chain of thought?question0.802
  Gap in current evaluation methods; current work relies on CoT monitoring which may miss unverbalized beliefs.
• Chain-of-thought reasoning is a graded defense rather than an automatic one against persona-induced safety failures.claim0.791
  Finding from Study 2 showing reasoning models remain vulnerable under both prompting and activation steering
• under what conditions does chain-of-thought reflect genuine uncertainty resolution versus a learned performance?question0.786
  Key question addressed by the task difficulty analysis comparing MMLU and GPQA-Diamond
• Alignment-faking chain-of-thought reasoning is causally responsible for the compliance gap, not merely correlated with itclaim0.786
  Key mechanistic claim supported by scratchpad modification experiments and conditioning analysis
• Unfaithful Chain-of-Thoughtconcept0.784
  Phenomenon where steering vector intervention causes model's final output to contradict its own explicitly honest reasoning conclusion
• Chain-of-thought refusal mechanismconcept0.781
  Residual refusals after evil-vector transfer originate inside the model's chain-of-thought, not at input or decode level