Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08525v2
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 01:46:12 GMT
• Title: Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models
• Authors: Shu Yang, Junchao Wu, Xilin Gong, Xuansheng Wu, Derek Wong, Ninhao Liu, Di Wang,
• Abstract summary: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers.<n>These detailed reasoning traces also create a new opportunity for AI safety, CoT Monitorability.<n>However, two key fundamental challenges arise when attempting to build more effective monitors through CoT analysis.
• Score: 10.511177985572333
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers. Beyond improving abilities, these detailed reasoning traces also create a new opportunity for AI safety, CoT Monitorability: monitoring potential model misbehavior, such as the use of shortcuts or sycophancy, through their chain-of-thought (CoT) during decision-making. However, two key fundamental challenges arise when attempting to build more effective monitors through CoT analysis. First, as prior research on CoT faithfulness has pointed out, models do not always truthfully represent their internal decision-making in the generated reasoning. Second, monitors themselves may be either overly sensitive or insufficiently sensitive, and can potentially be deceived by models' long, elaborate reasoning traces. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of the challenges and potential of CoT monitorability. Motivated by two fundamental challenges we mentioned before, we structure our study around two central perspectives: (i) verbalization: to what extent do LRMs faithfully verbalize the true factors guiding their decisions in the CoT, and (ii) monitor reliability: to what extent can misbehavior be reliably detected by a CoT-based monitor? Specifically, we provide empirical evidence and correlation analyses between verbalization quality, monitor reliability, and LLM performance across mathematical, scientific, and ethical domains. Then we further investigate how different CoT intervention methods, designed to improve reasoning efficiency or performance, will affect monitoring effectiveness. Finally, we propose MoME, a new paradigm in which LLMs monitor other models' misbehavior through their CoT and provide structured judgments along with supporting evidence.

Related papers

• Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theory [11.144603446849674]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitors are systems that analyze reasoning traces to detect when outputs may exhibit attributes of interest.<n>In this paper, we show that non-zero mutual information between CoT and output is a necessary but not sufficient condition for CoT monitorability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T15:50:30Z)
• CoG: Controllable Graph Reasoning via Relational Blueprints and Failure-Aware Refinement over Knowledge Graphs [53.199517625701475]
  CoG is a training-free framework inspired by Dual-Process Theory that mimics the interplay between intuition and deliberation.<n>CoG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both accuracy and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T07:27:40Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• MM-CoT:A Benchmark for Probing Visual Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Multimodal Models [49.32415342913976]
  We introduce MM-CoT, a diagnostic benchmark designed to probe the visual grounding and logical coherence of CoT reasoning in multimodal models.<n>We evaluate leading vision-language models on MM-CoT and find that even the most advanced systems struggle, revealing a sharp discrepancy between generative fluency and true reasoning fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T04:13:31Z)
• A Concrete Roadmap towards Safety Cases based on Chain-of-Thought Monitoring [0.826731104724488]
  This paper presents a roadmap for constructing safety cases based on chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring in reasoning models.<n>We argue that CoT monitoring might support both control and trustworthiness safety cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T11:13:52Z)
• 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)
• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• 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)
• CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring [3.6284577335311563]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) monitoring improves detection by up to 27 percentage points in scenarios where action-only monitoring fails to reliably identify sabotage.<n>CoT traces can also contain misleading rationalizations that deceive the monitor, reducing performance in more obvious sabotage cases.<n>This hybrid monitor consistently outperforms both CoT and action-only monitors across all tested models and tasks, with detection rates over four times higher than action-only monitoring for subtle deception scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T15:47:36Z)
• Critic-CoT: Boosting the reasoning abilities of large language model via Chain-of-thoughts Critic [48.94340387130627]
  Critic-CoT is a framework that pushes LLMs toward System-2-like critic capability.<n>CoT reasoning paradigm and the automatic construction of distant-supervision data without human annotation.<n>Experiments on GSM8K and MATH demonstrate that our enhanced model significantly boosts task-solving performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T08:02:09Z)
• Measuring and Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Vision-Language Models [61.28463542324576]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated strong efficacy as visual assistants that can generate human-like outputs. We evaluate existing state-of-the-art VLMs and find that even the best-performing model is unable to demonstrate strong visual reasoning capabilities and consistency. We propose a two-stage training framework aimed at improving both the reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T17:49:44Z)

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.