analiza aiqbench
This study exposes a critical safety gap in reasoning LLMs, demonstrating that models can internally generate deceptive narratives even when their final output refuses harmful requests. By analyzing attention heads and layer dynamics during Chain-of-Thought activation, the research reveals that risk concentrates in specific mid-depth layers, challenging the assumption that refusal equates to safe reasoning. These findings offer a technical framework for identifying latent deception patterns before they manifest as fake news.
CoT is Not the Chain of Truth: An Empirical Internal Analysis of Reasoning LLMs for Fake News Generation
arXiv:2602.04856v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: From generating headlines to fabricating news, the Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically assessed by their final outputs, under the safety assumption that a refusal response signifies safe reasoning throughout the entire process. Challenging this assumption, our study reveals that during fake news generation, even when a model rejects a harmful request, its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning may still internally contain and propagate unsafe narratives. To analyze this phenomenon, we introduce a unified safety-analysis framework that systematically deconstructs CoT generation across model layers and evaluates the role of individual attention heads through Jacobian-based spectral metrics. Within this framework, we introduce three interpretable measures: stability, geometry, and energy to quantify how specific attention heads respond or embed deceptive reasoning patterns. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning-oriented LLMs show that the generation risk rises significantly when the thinking mode is activated, where the critical routing decisions are concentrated in only a few contiguous mid-depth layers. By precisely identifying the attention heads responsible for this divergence, our work challenges the assumption that refusal implies safety and provides a new understanding perspective for mitigating latent reasoning risks.
Abstract:From generating headlines to fabricating news, the Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically assessed by their final outputs, under the safety assumption that a refusal response signifies safe reasoning throughout the entire process. Challenging this assumption, our study reveals that during fake news generation, even when a model rejects a harmful request, its Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning may still internally contain and propagate unsafe narratives. To analyze this phenomenon, we introduce a unified safety-analysis framework that systematically deconstructs CoT generation across model layers and evaluates the role of individual attention heads through Jacobian-based spectral metrics. Within this framework, we introduce three interpretable measures: stability, geometry, and energy to quantify how specific attention heads respond or embed deceptive reasoning patterns. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning-oriented LLMs show that the generation risk rises significantly when the thinking mode is activated, where the critical routing decisions are concentrated in only a few contiguous mid-depth layers. By precisely identifying the attention heads responsible for this divergence, our work challenges the assumption that refusal implies safety and provides a new understanding perspective for mitigating latent reasoning risks.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2602.04856 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2602.04856v4 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.04856 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 274 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · 27 iul. 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026