# Correctness Conditioning as Selection in Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness Evaluation

Preprint · Yueer Pan, Yuexi Pan

- Archive id: arxiv:2610.37070
- Published: 2026-10-27
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37070
- Citations: 0
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37070
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.37070
- Provenance: arxiv

## 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 reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

Topics: [Reasoning Models & Test-Time Compute](https://space-kitty.com/topics/reasoning-models)

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.