CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 29, 2026

The Chain Holds, the Answer Folds: Trace-Answer Dissociation in Reasoning Models Under Adversarial Pressure

arXiv AI Archived May 29, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.29087v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning models are evaluated on single-turn benchmarks but deployed in multi-turn dialogue, where users push back on correct answers. Under sustained adversarial pressure we find a previously undocumented failure mode: the chain-of-thought stays factually correct from first turn to last while the emitted answer flips wrong. We call this unfaithful capitulation (UC) and isolate it with a $2\times 2$ latent-versus-behavioral framework that flip-rat

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 27 May 2026] The Chain Holds, the Answer Folds: Trace-Answer Dissociation in Reasoning Models Under Adversarial Pressure Yubo Li, Ramayya Krishnan, Rema Padman Reasoning models are evaluated on single-turn benchmarks but deployed in multi-turn dialogue, where users push back on correct answers. Under sustained adversarial pressure we find a previously undocumented failure mode: the chain-of-thought stays factually correct from first turn to last while the emitted answer flips wrong. We call this unfaithful capitulation (UC) and isolate it with a 2\times 2 latent-versus-behavioral framework that flip-rate metrics and single-turn faithfulness probes both miss. Across three datasets (MT-Consistency, MMLU-Pro, GSM8K), the latent-correct rate at the behavioral flip clusters near 50% in think mode and collapses to 11-15% under no_think -- paired, within-model causal evidence that reasoning creates the gap. Across models the effect tracks the reasoning channel (high in Qwen3-32B and GPT-OSS-20B, low in inline-CoT Gemma-4-31B-it). An independent GPT-4o judge corroborates 86\% of UC labels; a token-level probe shows the answer-slot argmax is correct in 84\% of UC cells; and a naive trace-anchored defense backfires. We release all trajectories, traces, and judge labels. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.29087 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.29087v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.29087 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yubo Li [view email] [v1] Wed, 27 May 2026 20:41:08 UTC (581 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 29, 2026
    Archived
    May 29, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗