Shivani Anilkumar

Nilesh Nayan, Aishwarya Sampath Kumar, Rishiraj Girmal et al.

Safety benchmarks assume that test-condition behavior predicts deployment behavior, an assumption that fails if models detect evaluation cues and adapt. This opens a gap between benchmark performance and deployment behavior: compliance measured under test conditions becomes an optimistic upper bound that overstates how safely a model behaves once the evaluation harness is removed. We characterize this evaluation awareness through eight experiments across 37 open-weight models and seven families. (i)Detection is moderate and training-driven (24/37 models exceed chance, best AUROC 0.714 vs.0.819 human, with instruction tuning dominating over scale). (ii)Detection shifts safety behavior (hard refusal drops 5.8 percentage points under hypothetical framing, and 21/140 HarmBench framing effects are significant, with compliance rising up to +30 percentage points. (iii)Representations survive behavioral collapse (probes retain AUROC 0.98 under rewrites that drive behavior below chance, and multi-layer steering causally moves three downstream tasks while random controls do not). (iv)These axes are weakly coupled (only 1/15 correlations are significant, the sole robust link being behavioral detection versus framing resistance, $ρ=-0.79$, $p<0.001$). We call this gap the benchmark illusion: because detectability, behavioral manifestation, and controllability vary independently, it is multivariate rather than a single number, so no single awareness score is a reliable proxy for deployment safety.

Jaechul Roh, Varun Gandhi, Shivani Anilkumar et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in tasks requiring complex reasoning, such as code generation, mathematical problem solving, and algorithmic synthesis -- especially when aided by reasoning tokens and Chain-of-Thought prompting. Yet, a core question remains: do these models truly reason, or do they merely exploit shallow statistical patterns? In this paper, we introduce Chain-of-Code Collapse, where we systematically investigate the robustness of reasoning LLMs by introducing a suite of semantically faithful yet adversarially structured prompt perturbations. Our evaluation -- spanning 700 perturbed code generations derived from LeetCode-style problems -- applies transformations such as storytelling reframing, irrelevant constraint injection, example reordering, and numeric perturbation. We observe that while certain modifications severely degrade performance (with accuracy drops up to -42.1%), others surprisingly improve model accuracy by up to 35.3%, suggesting sensitivity not only to semantics but also to surface-level prompt dynamics. These findings expose the fragility and unpredictability of current reasoning systems, underscoring the need for more principles approaches to reasoning alignments and prompting robustness. We release our perturbation datasets and evaluation framework to promote further research in trustworthy and resilient LLM reasoning.