Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00830 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866914230793404416 |
|---|---|
| author | Mehta, Deep Pankajbhai |
| author_facet | Mehta, Deep Pankajbhai |
| contents | When AI systems explain their reasoning step-by-step, practitioners often assume these explanations reveal what actually influenced the AI's answer. We tested this assumption by embedding hints into questions and measuring whether models mentioned them. In a study of over 9,000 test cases across 11 leading AI models, we found a troubling pattern: models almost never mention hints spontaneously, yet when asked directly, they admit noticing them. This suggests models see influential information but choose not to report it. Telling models they are being watched does not help. Forcing models to report hints works, but causes them to report hints even when none exist and reduces their accuracy. We also found that hints appealing to user preferences are especially dangerous-models follow them most often while reporting them least. These findings suggest that simply watching AI reasoning is not enough to catch hidden influences. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_00830 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Can We Trust AI Explanations? Evidence of Systematic Underreporting in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Mehta, Deep Pankajbhai Artificial Intelligence When AI systems explain their reasoning step-by-step, practitioners often assume these explanations reveal what actually influenced the AI's answer. We tested this assumption by embedding hints into questions and measuring whether models mentioned them. In a study of over 9,000 test cases across 11 leading AI models, we found a troubling pattern: models almost never mention hints spontaneously, yet when asked directly, they admit noticing them. This suggests models see influential information but choose not to report it. Telling models they are being watched does not help. Forcing models to report hints works, but causes them to report hints even when none exist and reduces their accuracy. We also found that hints appealing to user preferences are especially dangerous-models follow them most often while reporting them least. These findings suggest that simply watching AI reasoning is not enough to catch hidden influences. |
| title | Can We Trust AI Explanations? Evidence of Systematic Underreporting in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00830 |