{"id":"arxiv:2610.37070","kind":"preprint","title":"Correctness Conditioning as Selection in Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness Evaluation","authors":["Yueer Pan","Yuexi Pan"],"author_count":2,"year":2026,"published":"2026-10-27","venue":null,"cited_by":0,"doi":null,"arxiv_id":"2610.37070","nct_id":null,"source_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37070","archive_url":"https://space-kitty.com/papers/arxiv:2610.37070","updated":"2026-10-27","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"W7224121597","pdf_url":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.37070","abstract":"Restricting chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness evaluation to correctly answered instances changes the population being measured. We study this selection step in a seven-variable structural causal model and derive the exact observed gap $Δ= \\operatorname{Cov}(A, C)/P(C=1)$. The model distinguishes difficulty confounding from shortcut-induced collider bias and states the conditional-independence assumption needed to express the gap through latent response propensities. A protocol review of 18 papers distinguishes answer-correctness restrictions from agreement-based selection, benchmark construction, and training-data filtering. We evaluate four sub-ceiling deployments on arithmetic tasks and observe positive selection gaps in all four. The primary GLM-5.3 run yields a +7.4 percentage-point gap ($n = 1000$, $p < 0.0001$), and pooled Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis gives OR = 1.70 ($p < 10^{-6}$). An assumption-free covariance decomposition assigns 42.8% of the GLM-5.3 gap to between-stratum variation in interventionable-operation count, leaving the majority unattributed. When counterfactual compliance is observable for every instance, evaluating all traces directly estimates population faithfulness without correctness filtering.","abstract_license":"CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)","license":null,"is_open_access":false,"retracted":false,"peer_reviewed":false,"categories":["cs.AI"],"details":null,"provenance":"arxiv","attribution":"Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.","topics":[{"slug":"reasoning-models","name":"Reasoning Models & Test-Time Compute","domain_slug":"ai"}],"cited_in_dossiers":[]}