new

Get trending papers in your email inbox!

Subscribe

Daily Papers

byAK and the research community

Aug 31

Measuring Faithfulness Depends on How You Measure: Classifier Sensitivity in LLM Chain-of-Thought Evaluation

Recent work on chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 acknowledges hints 39% of the time), implying that faithfulness is an objective, measurable property of a model. This paper demonstrates that it is not. Three classifiers (a regex-only detector, a two-stage regex-plus-LLM pipeline, and an independent Claude Sonnet 4 judge) are applied to 10,276 influenced reasoning traces from 12 open-weight models spanning 9 families and 7B to 1T parameters. On identical data, these classifiers produce overall faithfulness rates of 74.4%, 82.6%, and 69.7%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Per-model gaps range from 2.6 to 30.6 percentage points; all are statistically significant (McNemar's test, p < 0.001). The disagreements are systematic, not random: inter-classifier agreement measured by Cohen's kappa ranges from 0.06 ("slight") for sycophancy hints to 0.42 ("moderate") for grader hints, and the asymmetry is pronounced: for sycophancy, 883 cases are classified as faithful by the pipeline but unfaithful by the Sonnet judge, while only 2 go the other direction. Classifier choice can also reverse model rankings: Qwen3.5-27B ranks 1st under the pipeline but 7th under the Sonnet judge; OLMo-3.1-32B moves in the opposite direction, from 9th to 3rd. The root cause is that different classifiers operationalize related faithfulness constructs at different levels of stringency (lexical mention versus epistemic dependence), and these constructs yield divergent measurements on the same behavior. These results demonstrate that published faithfulness numbers cannot be meaningfully compared across studies that use different classifiers, and that future evaluations should report sensitivity ranges across multiple classification methodologies rather than single point estimates.

  • 1 authors
·
Mar 20

Reverse to Advance: Teleoperation-Cost Effective Hard Policy Learning from Reversed Easy Tasks

High-quality teleoperation datasets are costly to collect, particularly for hard tasks. We observe that many tasks exhibit directional asymmetry: completing the forward hard task is difficult, whereas reversing it by relaxing or disrupting the environment is comparatively easy. This suggests that reversed easy-task trajectories can serve as a scalable supervision signal for the hard task, reducing the cost of manual demonstration collection. However, reversed data can be noisy, and directly training on it may yield suboptimal policies. To enable largely automated acquisition and effective use of reversed data, we propose a teleoperation-cost effective framework for hard policy learning via temporal reversal of easy tasks, consisting of three key components: a closed-loop data collection pipeline that alternates between hard-task and easy-task policies to autonomously reset the environment and generate diverse trajectories; a hierarchical data refinement pipeline that temporally inverts easy-task rollouts and filters low-quality motion using kinematic priors and a critic-guided advantage filter; and an iterative policy learning method that trains the hard-task policy using both initial reversed easy-task demonstrations and the filtered reversed data in a continuous online learning loop. By combining automated collection, hierarchical refinement, and iterative learning, our method enables scalable, reliable training of complex, high-precision manipulation tasks. Across two simulated benchmarks and real-robot experiments, we demonstrate that our method improves hard-task success rates with higher data efficiency and more stable training compared to reversal-based and reinforcement-learning baselines, without requiring extensive hard-task teleoperation.

  • 4 authors
·
Jul 14