{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/arxiv-2605-10799","title":"The Last Word Often Wins: A Format Confound in Chain-of-Thought Corruption Studies","arxiv_id":"2605.10799","date":"2026-05-11","proceeding":null,"authors":["Gabriel Garcia"],"abstract":"Corruption studies, the standard tool for evaluating chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness, infer which steps are ``computationally important'' from accuracy loss when steps are corrupted. We show that when benchmark chains end with an explicit terminal answer line, as in GSM8K and MATH, these tests largely measure \\emph{answer placement} rather than where intermediate computation is carried out. Using matched GSM8K examples, removing only the final answer statement while preserving all reasoning collapses suffix sensitivity by about $19\\times$ for Qwen~2.5-3B ($N{=}300$, $p{=}0.022$). Conflicting-answer prompts, which contain correct reasoning but a wrong explicit final answer, drive accuracy to zero or near-zero at 7B across five open-weight model families; wrong-answer following is strong at 3B--7B and attenuates sharply at larger scales. Replications on MATH, within-stable comparisons at 7B, and suffix-free chains show the same pattern in different guises: corruption sensitivity tracks the location of explicit answer text, not a fixed computational depth in the reasoning. Generation-time probes indicate that final answers are rarely early-determined during generation (${<}5\\%$ early commitment), yet consumption-time behavior systematically follows explicit answer text. The confound is therefore largely a readout effect when the chain is consumed. We propose a three-prerequisite protocol (question-only control, format characterization, and an all-position sweep) as a practical minimum for future corruption-based faithfulness studies.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10799","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.10799","source":{"archive":null,"snapshot":"2025-07-28","note":"not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen at the snapshot)","row_kind":"graph","title_abstract_authors_date":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)"},"code_links":[],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"atlas_url":"https://app.syntology.ai/?focus=2605.10799","mcp":{"get_harvested_code_for_paper":{"arxiv_id":"2605.10799"}},"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers","read_at":"2026-09-24T18:15:14+00:00","read_at_is":"when the build read Syntology's graph, not when any sample ran","claim":"Per-sample execution status on synthesized fixtures; not a correctness claim about the paper. Samples come from repositories linked to the paper, official or community; repo_kind says which.","repos":[{"mentioned_in_github":null,"is_official":null,"provenance":"deterministic:regex_extraction","mentioned_in_paper":null,"url":"https://github.com/Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT","reach":null}],"summary":{"ran_draft_wrong":3},"by_repo_kind":{"found_in_text":{"samples":3,"ran":3,"repositories":1}},"repo_kind_vocabulary":{"official":"The archive marks this repository official for the paper","named_in_paper":"The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official","listed":"In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper","found_in_text":"Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted","community":"Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested"},"n_pointer_only_for_licence":3,"samples":[{"code_sha256_prefix":"30a2f79daa743cff","entry":"_perturb_number","repo":"Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT","repo_kind":"found_in_text","path":"src/datasets/build_factorial_dataset.py","file_url":"https://github.com/Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT/blob/HEAD/src/datasets/build_factorial_dataset.py","link_basis":"first_harvest_node","language":"python","status":"ran_draft_wrong","verification_level":1,"contract_check":"OUTPUT_MISDECLARED","metamorphic_tier":null,"behaviour_fingerprint":false,"licence":"NOASSERTION","inline_ok":false,"mcp_get_code":{"code_sha256":"30a2f79daa743cff"}},{"code_sha256_prefix":"380012da78da18d0","entry":"_perturb_operator","repo":"Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT","repo_kind":"found_in_text","path":"src/datasets/build_factorial_dataset.py","file_url":"https://github.com/Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT/blob/HEAD/src/datasets/build_factorial_dataset.py","link_basis":"first_harvest_node","language":"python","status":"ran_draft_wrong","verification_level":1,"contract_check":"OUTPUT_MISDECLARED","metamorphic_tier":null,"behaviour_fingerprint":true,"licence":"NOASSERTION","inline_ok":false,"mcp_get_code":{"code_sha256":"380012da78da18d0"}},{"code_sha256_prefix":"917eac26c54743a4","entry":"semantic_corrupt_step","repo":"Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT","repo_kind":"found_in_text","path":"src/datasets/build_factorial_dataset.py","file_url":"https://github.com/Gpgabriel25/LastWordWinsCoT/blob/HEAD/src/datasets/build_factorial_dataset.py","link_basis":"first_harvest_node","language":"python","status":"ran_draft_wrong","verification_level":1,"contract_check":"OUTPUT_MISDECLARED","metamorphic_tier":null,"behaviour_fingerprint":true,"licence":"NOASSERTION","inline_ok":false,"mcp_get_code":{"code_sha256":"917eac26c54743a4"}}]},"arxiv_metadata":{"licence":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license)","fields":["title","abstract","authors","date"],"primary_category":"cs.LG","source":"arxiv_2026.jsonl"},"syntology_extracted_results":null}