# RAudit: A Blind Auditing Protocol for Large Language Model Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.23133 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.23133/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [AI safety via debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.00899/) (2018)
- [Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09479/) (2023)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [BrokenMath: A Benchmark for Sycophancy in Theorem Proving with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04721/) (2025)
- [SocraSynth: Multi-LLM Reasoning with Conditional Statistics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06634/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Faithfulness Metrics Don't Measure Faithfulness: A Meta-Evaluation with Ground Truth](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25052/) (2026)
- [Multi-Agent Debate for Explainable Trading: Reasoning, Consensus, and Performance in Simulated Markets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29701/) (2026)

## 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.