mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Counterfactual Likelihood Tests for Indirect Influence in Private Reasoning Channels

arXiv 2605.19092 ↗First posted 18 May 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reasoning systems increasingly separate intermediate computation into private and public channels, creating evaluation cases that look similar in transcripts: independent co-derivation, direct access to private content, and indirect influence through public communication. This paper presents a counterfactual likelihood test for measuring influence between private reasoning channels. The method replaces an upstream private block with a length-matched donor block, holds the public token sequence and downstream target fixed, and measures the downstream target's negative-log-likelihood shift. On a 7B role-channel reasoning model used for validation, textual probes are unreliable: raw n-gram overlap overstates leakage, corrected overlap remains noisy, and canary reproduction reports no discrimination. Counterfactual likelihood separates unmasked and masked conditions, while length matching controls a RoPE positional confound. In the hardened masked validation, reverse B-to-A influence is near zero, while A-to-B influence persists through public-speech hidden states. A multi-checkpoint validation across three checkpoints, five seeds, and 13,734 valid directional contrasts replicates this asymmetry. A graph-separation control that blocks private-to-public carrier edges produces bit-identical natural and counterfactual scores across all 13,734 control evaluations, identifying the tested public-channel pathway as the complete carrier of the measured counterfactual signal under the implemented role-visibility mask. The results show that private-channel evaluation should report direct and indirect influence separately, and that counterfactual likelihood probes provide a practical default for measuring these boundaries.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

Builds on

11 of 11 references.

References · 11

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  3. 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,211
  4. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  5. 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
  6. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  7. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
  8. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 400
  9. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 249
  10. 2020Causal Mediation Analysis for Interpreting Neural NLP: The Case of Gender Biascited by 191
  11. 2026Multi-Stream LLMs: Unblocking Language Models with Parallel Streams of Thoughts, Inputs and Outputscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Quantifying the Privacy of Counterfactuals by Leveraging Membership Inference Attacks Against Synthetic Data
  2. 2026Counterfactual Tests for Measuring Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness in Visual Language Models
  3. 2025CounterBench: Evaluating and Improving Counterfactual Reasoning in Large Language Models
  4. 2025Executable Counterfactuals: Improving LLMs' Causal Reasoning Through Code
  5. 2025Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing for Faithfulness in Vision-Language Model Explanations
  6. 2026Resist and Update: Counterfactual Report Coordinates for Incentive-Compatible LLMs
  7. 2025Counterfactual reasoning: an analysis of in-context emergence
  8. 2024The Probabilities Also Matter: A More Faithful Metric for Faithfulness of Free-Text Explanations in Large Language Models