Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.27378v1
• Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 11:14:39 GMT
• Title: Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity
• Authors: Austin Meek, Eitan Sprejer, Iván Arcuschin, Austin J. Brockmeier, Steven Basart,
• Abstract summary: Chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs let us read a model's step-by-step reasoning.<n>We evaluate instruction-tuned and reasoning models on BBH, GPQA, and MMLU.
• Score: 3.117948413097524
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) outputs let us read a model's step-by-step reasoning. Since any long, serial reasoning process must pass through this textual trace, the quality of the CoT is a direct window into what the model is thinking. This visibility could help us spot unsafe or misaligned behavior (monitorability), but only if the CoT is transparent about its internal reasoning (faithfulness). Fully measuring faithfulness is difficult, so researchers often focus on examining the CoT in cases where the model changes its answer after adding a cue to the input. This proxy finds some instances of unfaithfulness but loses information when the model maintains its answer, and does not investigate aspects of reasoning not tied to the cue. We extend these results to a more holistic sense of monitorability by introducing verbosity: whether the CoT lists every factor needed to solve the task. We combine faithfulness and verbosity into a single monitorability score that shows how well the CoT serves as the model's external `working memory', a property that many safety schemes based on CoT monitoring depend on. We evaluate instruction-tuned and reasoning models on BBH, GPQA, and MMLU. Our results show that models can appear faithful yet remain hard to monitor when they leave out key factors, and that monitorability differs sharply across model families. We release our evaluation code using the Inspect library to support reproducible future work.

Related papers

• Can Aha Moments Be Fake? Identifying True and Decorative Thinking Steps in Chain-of-Thought [72.45900226435289]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) at test time, enabling them to solve complex tasks.<n>We measure the step-wise causal influence of each reasoning step on the model's final prediction with a proposed True Thinking Score (TTS)<n>We identify a TrueThinking direction in the latent space of LLMs, which can force the model to perform or disregard certain CoT steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T20:14:02Z)
• A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability [10.811252340660907]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) monitoring offers a unique opportunity for AI safety.<n>To help preserve monitorability, we propose a pragmatic way to measure two components of it: legibility and coverage.<n>We implement these metrics with an autorater prompt that enables any capable LLM to compute the legibility and coverage of existing CoTs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T00:44:25Z)
• Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability [35.180361462848516]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) is a promising tool for alignment monitoring.<n>Can models obfuscate their CoT in order to pursue hidden adversarial objectives while evading detection?<n>We develop a composable and quantifiable taxonomy of prompts to elicit CoT obfuscation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T18:07:10Z)
• FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
  FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z)
• Beyond Linear Probes: Dynamic Safety Monitoring for Language Models [67.15793594651609]
  Traditional safety monitors require the same amount of compute for every query.<n>We introduce Truncated Polynomials (TPCs), a natural extension of linear probes for dynamic activation monitoring.<n>Our key insight is that TPCs can be trained and evaluated progressively, term-by-term.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T13:32:59Z)
• When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors [10.705880888253501]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is an appealing AI safety defense.<n>Recent work on "unfaithfulness" has cast doubt on its reliability.<n>We argue the key property is not faithfulness but monitorability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T17:54:52Z)
• A Closer Look at Bias and Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Large (Vision) Language Models [58.32070787537946]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances performance of large language models.<n>We present the first comprehensive study of CoT faithfulness in large vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T18:55:05Z)
• Mitigating Deceptive Alignment via Self-Monitoring [15.365589693661823]
  We develop a framework that embeds a Self-Monitor inside the chain-of-thought process itself, named CoT Monitor+.<n>During generation, the model produces (i) ordinary reasoning steps and (ii) an internal self-evaluation signal trained to flag and suppress misaligned strategies.<n>The signal is used as an auxiliary reward in reinforcement learning, creating a feedback loop that rewards honest reasoning and discourages hidden goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T17:41:47Z)
• Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think [48.05987314492555]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) allows monitoring a model's intentions and reasoning processes.<n>We evaluate CoT faithfulness of state-of-the-art reasoning models across 6 reasoning hints presented in prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T16:51:43Z)
• Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation [56.102976602468615]
  We show that we can monitor a frontier reasoning model, such as OpenAI o3-mini, for reward hacking in agentic coding environments.<n>We find that with too much optimization, agents learn obfuscated reward hacking, hiding their intent within the chain-of-thought.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T23:50:34Z)
• Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [19.074147845029355]
  Large language models (LLMs) perform better when they produce step-by-step, "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) reasoning before answering a question. It is unclear if the stated reasoning is a faithful explanation of the model's actual reasoning (i.e., its process for answering the question) We investigate hypotheses for how CoT reasoning may be unfaithful, by examining how the model predictions change when we intervene on the CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T01:08:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.