mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CASE: Causal Alignment and Structural Enforcement for Improving Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

arXiv 2607.18820 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 2

On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is widely used to improve both the performance and interpretability of large language models (LLMs), yet the generated reasoning may not faithfully support the final answer. We study this problem from a causal perspective, where a faithful CoT process should follow the chain Zrightarrow Xrightarrow Y, with Z, X, and Y denoting the instruction, reasoning chain, and final answer, respectively. In this process, the instruction should affect the answer only through the reasoning chain. However, conventional autoregressive LLMs condition answer generation on both the instruction and the CoT, which still allows a direct instruction-to-answer shortcut. To address this issue, we propose CASE, a framework that combines training-time causal alignment and inference-time structural enforcement. During training, CASE builds counterfactual-CoT, biased-instruction, and empty-instruction datasets, and applies selective-loss fine-tuning to strengthen CoT-to-answer dependence while suppressing instruction shortcuts. During inference, CASE masks direct attention from instruction tokens to answer tokens, preventing the model from bypassing the generated CoT. We provide an information-theoretic analysis showing how these components promote faithful chains. Experiments on three models and four benchmarks show that CASE achieves a 37% average per-setting relative improvement in overall CoT faithfulness over the strongest baselines, exhibits stronger cross-dataset faithfulness transfer, and maintains competitive average accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/oddwang/CASE.

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 6 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

Builds on

6 of 26 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024On the Hardness of Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Large Language Models15 Jun
  2. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul

Other references · 4

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  2. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  3. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
  4. 2024DeepSeek-V3 Technical Reportcited by 811

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Unveiling and Causalizing CoT: A Causal Pespective
  2. 2023Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
  3. 2025FRIT: Using Causal Importance to Improve Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness
  4. 2026Post-Hoc Reasoning in Chain of Thought: Decoding and Steering Pre-Committed Answers
  5. 2024Chain-of-Probe: Examining the Necessity and Accuracy of CoT Step-by-Step
  6. 2026Faithfulness as Information Flow: Evaluating and Training Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
  7. 2025Early Stopping Chain-of-thoughts in Large Language Models
  8. 2025Causal Sufficiency and Necessity Improves Chain-of-Thought Reasoning