An LLM-as-judge scanner detects reasoning–answer inconsistency in AI safety evaluation transcripts at rates of 0–26%, varying systematically across model and task type.
Title resolution pending
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
fields
cs.AI 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Reasoning Consistency Scanning: A Framework for Auditing Chain-of-Thought Validity in AI Safety Evaluations
An LLM-as-judge scanner detects reasoning–answer inconsistency in AI safety evaluation transcripts at rates of 0–26%, varying systematically across model and task type.