# Why2Speak: Faithful Reasoning for Abstaining Action Policies

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20670 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.20670/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 9 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.03368/) (2019)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11473/) (2025)
- [Hidden Error Awareness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: The Signal Is Diagnostic, Not Causal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09502/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Hallucination Across the Reasoning Lifecycle: Interface Visibility, Causal Evidence, and Release Control in Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05472/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Many agentic systems must repeatedly choose between acting and abstaining, making faithful reasoning important for oversight: an explanation is useful only if it reflects the computation that produced the action. We study this problem through intervention timing in multi-party conversation, where an assistant must decide whether to speak or remain silent. This setting exposes class imbalance, asymmetric action costs, and the possibility that exposing reasoning changes the policy being audited. Using Qwen3-8B, decoded with or without chain-of-thought reasoning, we compare direct decision policies, reasoning policies, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning. We find a capability-auditability tradeoff: the strongest direct policy achieves higher quality but exposes no reasoning to inspect, while the reasoning policy provides a trace at the cost of lower performance, particularly recall of true intervention opportunities. Supervised fine-tuning either suppresses reasoning or preserves it without improving decision quality, while reinforcement learning also fails to improve the reasoning policy. We identify one mechanism underlying this failure: group relative objectives provide no learning signal on confidently wrong prompts when sampled rollouts all select the same action. Controlled activation probes and behavioral ablations show that standard faithfulness methods can overstate evidence that exposed reasoning reflects the underlying decision process. Probability-based metrics saturate under confident decisions, probes are vulnerable to class imbalance and textual leakage, and reasoning ablations can confound reasoning content with changes in inference mode. Together, these results show that exposing reasoning can change an agent's action policy rather than simply make it observable. We provide controls for evaluating reasoning-based oversight of agents that can act or abstain.