Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

The study reveals that LLMs often lack true causal faithfulness to their own intermediate structures, failing to update predictions when those structures are edited. Practitioners should treat these intermediate outputs as influential context rather than stable mediators, relying instead on external tools or preference optimization to ensure controllability in schema-guided reasoning pipelines.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Breaking the Chain: A Causal Analysis of LLM Faithfulness to Intermediate Structures

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2603.16475v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In schema-guided reasoning (SGR) pipelines, LLMs produce explicit intermediate structures -- rubrics, checklists, or verification queries -- before committing to a final decision. SGR is increasingly adopted because it promises controllability: practitioners expect to inspect, edit, and override these structures to steer the outcome. But does the promise hold? We introduce a causal evaluation protocol to measure it: by selecting tasks where a deterministic function maps intermediate structures to decisions, every controlled edit implies a unique correct output. Across 12 models and 4 benchmarks, models appear self-consistent with their own intermediate structures but fail to update predictions after intervention -- revealing that apparent faithfulness is fragile once the intermediate structure changes. When derivation of the final decision from the structure is delegated to an external tool, this fragility largely disappears; stronger prompting yields only limited improvements, while preference optimization substantially improves intervention faithfulness. Overall, intermediate structures in schema-guided pipelines function as influential context rather than stable causal mediators.

Abstract:In schema-guided reasoning (SGR) pipelines, LLMs produce explicit intermediate structures -- rubrics, checklists, or verification queries -- before committing to a final decision. SGR is increasingly adopted because it promises controllability: practitioners expect to inspect, edit, and override these structures to steer the outcome. But does the promise hold? We introduce a causal evaluation protocol to measure it: by selecting tasks where a deterministic function maps intermediate structures to decisions, every controlled edit implies a unique correct output. Across 12 models and 4 benchmarks, models appear self-consistent with their own intermediate structures but fail to update predictions after intervention -- revealing that apparent faithfulness is fragile once the intermediate structure changes. When derivation of the final decision from the structure is delegated to an external tool, this fragility largely disappears; stronger prompting yields only limited improvements, while preference optimization substantially improves intervention faithfulness. Overall, intermediate structures in schema-guided pipelines function as influential context rather than stable causal mediators.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2603.16475 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2603.16475v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.16475 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 250 words

Related coverage