# Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16154 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16154/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 44 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 44)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19256/) (2024)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10045/) (2019)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.12588/) (2022)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [ViperGPT: Visual Inference via Python Execution for Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08128/) (2023)
- [Visual Programming: Compositional visual reasoning without training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.11559/) (2022)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13379/) (2023)
- [A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.08298/) (2023)
- [FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00840/) (2022)
- [MuSR: Testing the Limits of Chain-of-thought with Multistep Soft Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16049/) (2023)
- [ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01100/) (2025)
- [Phi-4-reasoning Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21318/) (2025)
- [Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.14271/) (2022)
- [BIG-Bench Extra Hard](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19187/) (2025)
- [Ministral 3](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08584/) (2026)
- [Thinkless: LLM Learns When to Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13379/) (2025)
- [SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08177/) (2025)
- [SOTOPIA-π: Interactive Learning of Socially Intelligent Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08715/) (2024)
- [MAPoRL: Multi-Agent Post-Co-Training for Collaborative Large Language Models with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18439/) (2025)
- [Prover-Verifier Games improve legibility of LLM outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13692/) (2024)
- [On Reinforcement Learning and Distribution Matching for Fine-Tuning Language Models with no Catastrophic Forgetting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.00761/) (2022)

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

- [MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28590/) (2026)
- [When to Call an Apple Red: Humans Follow Introspective Rules, VLMs Don't](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06422/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning sometimes fails to faithfully reflect the true computation of a large language model (LLM), hampering its utility in explaining how LLMs arrive at their answers. Moreover, optimizing for faithfulness and interpretability in reasoning often degrades task performance. To address this tradeoff and improve CoT faithfulness, we propose Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL), a multi-party reinforcement learning approach. REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful. A speaker model generates a reasoning trace, which is truncated and passed to a pool of listener models who "execute" the trace, continuing the trace to an answer. Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners, with additional correctness regularization via masked supervised finetuning to counter the tradeoff between faithfulness and performance. On multiple reasoning benchmarks (BIG-Bench Extra Hard, MuSR, ZebraLogicBench, and FOLIO), REMUL consistently and substantially improves three measures of faithfulness -- hint attribution, early answering area over the curve (AOC), and mistake injection AOC -- while also improving accuracy. Our analysis finds that these gains are robust across training domains, translate to legibility gains, and are associated with shorter and more direct CoTs.