RAudit: A Blind Auditing Protocol for Large Language Model Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking
Abstract (arXiv)
Inference-time scaling can amplify reasoning pathologies: sycophancy, rung collapse, and premature certainty. We present RAudit, a diagnostic protocol for auditing LLM reasoning without ground truth access. The key constraint is blindness: the auditor evaluates only whether derivation steps support conclusions, enabling detection of trace-output inconsistency and, when latent competence exists, its recovery. RAudit measures process quality via CRIT-based reasonableness scores and varies critique formulation to study how social framing affects model response. We prove bounded correction and O(log(1/ε)) termination. Experiments on mathematical reasoning (CAP-GSM8K) and causal judgment (CausalL2) reveal four mechanisms explaining model unreliability: (1) Latent Competence Suppression, where models derive correct answers then overwrite them under social pressure; (2) The False Competence Trap, where weaker judges mask sycophancy that stronger judges expose; (3) The Complexity-Vulnerability Tradeoff, where causal tasks induce more than 10 times higher sycophancy than mathematical tasks; and (4) Iatrogenic Critique, where authoritative correction harms weaker models. These findings challenge assumptions that capability implies robustness and that stronger feedback yields better outputs.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 14 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.
Builds on
14 of 45 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models17 May
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know11 Jul
Other references · 12
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 995
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
- 2023Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Bettercited by 205
- 2022ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 175
- 2025BrokenMath: A Benchmark for Sycophancy in Theorem Proving with LLMscited by 23
- 2024SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statisticscited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Diagnosing and Mitigating Sycophancy and Skepticism in LLM Causal Judgment
- 2025Audit-of-Understanding: Posterior-Constrained Inference for Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models
- 2025Internal Reasoning vs. External Control: A Thermodynamic Analysis of Sycophancy in Large Language Models
- 2026Dissecting Failure Dynamics in Large Language Model Reasoning
- 2025Catch Me If You Can: How Smaller Reasoning Models Pretend to Reason with Mathematical Fidelity
- 2026Amplified Does Not Mean Predictive: Reasoning Behaviors in Thinking Models
- 2026How Much Thinking is Enough? Quantifying and Understanding Redundancy in LLM Reasoning
- 2024Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning in LLMs