Red Teaming Large Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00412v1
• Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 09:45:03 GMT
• Title: Red Teaming Large Reasoning Models
• Authors: Jiawei Chen, Yang Yang, Chao Yu, Yu Tian, Zhi Cao, Linghao Li, Hang Su, Zhaoxia Yin,
• Abstract summary: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have emerged as a powerful advancement in multi-step reasoning tasks.<n>LRMs introduce novel safety and reliability risks, such as CoT-hijacking and prompt-induced inefficiencies.<n>We propose RT-LRM, a unified benchmark designed to assess the trustworthiness of LRMs.
• Score: 26.720095252284818
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have emerged as a powerful advancement in multi-step reasoning tasks, offering enhanced transparency and logical consistency through explicit chains of thought (CoT). However, these models introduce novel safety and reliability risks, such as CoT-hijacking and prompt-induced inefficiencies, which are not fully captured by existing evaluation methods. To address this gap, we propose RT-LRM, a unified benchmark designed to assess the trustworthiness of LRMs. RT-LRM evaluates three core dimensions: truthfulness, safety and efficiency. Beyond metric-based evaluation, we further introduce the training paradigm as a key analytical perspective to investigate the systematic impact of different training strategies on model trustworthiness. We achieve this by designing a curated suite of 30 reasoning tasks from an observational standpoint. We conduct extensive experiments on 26 models and identify several valuable insights into the trustworthiness of LRMs. For example, LRMs generally face trustworthiness challenges and tend to be more fragile than Large Language Models (LLMs) when encountering reasoning-induced risks. These findings uncover previously underexplored vulnerabilities and highlight the need for more targeted evaluations. In addition, we release a scalable toolbox for standardized trustworthiness research to support future advancements in this important field. Our code and datasets will be open-sourced.

Related papers

• SafeRBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Safety Assessment in Large Reasoning Models [60.8821834954637]
  We present SafeRBench, the first benchmark that assesses LRM safety end-to-end.<n>We pioneer the incorporation of risk categories and levels into input design.<n>We introduce a micro-thought chunking mechanism to segment long reasoning traces into semantically coherent units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T06:46:33Z)
• Distractor Injection Attacks on Large Reasoning Models: Characterization and Defense [16.519353449118814]
  We analyze a critical vulnerability we term reasoning distraction, where LRMs are diverted from their primary objective by irrelevant yet complex tasks maliciously embedded in the prompt.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art LRMs are highly susceptible, with injected distractors reducing task accuracy by up to 60%.<n>We propose a training-based defense that combines Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) on synthetic adversarial data, improving robustness by over 50 points on challenging distractor attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T23:16:34Z)
• 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)
• From Faithfulness to Correctness: Generative Reward Models that Think Critically [40.07140704454647]
  We propose the Thinking-supervised Reward Model (TRM) to endow reward models with critical thinking abilities.<n>Given a query, answer, and supporting documents, TRM first assesses the faithfulness of each answer sentence to the supporting documents, and then applies a reasoning step to evaluate sentence-level correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T19:06:56Z)
• RADAR: A Risk-Aware Dynamic Multi-Agent Framework for LLM Safety Evaluation via Role-Specialized Collaboration [81.38705556267917]
  Existing safety evaluation methods for large language models (LLMs) suffer from inherent limitations.<n>We introduce a theoretical framework that reconstructs the underlying risk concept space.<n>We propose RADAR, a multi-agent collaborative evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T09:35:32Z)
• Unveiling Trust in Multimodal Large Language Models: Evaluation, Analysis, and Mitigation [51.19622266249408]
  MultiTrust-X is a benchmark for evaluating, analyzing, and mitigating the trustworthiness issues of MLLMs.<n>Based on the taxonomy, MultiTrust-X includes 32 tasks and 28 curated datasets.<n>Our experiments reveal significant vulnerabilities in current models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T09:00:01Z)
• Towards Evaluting Fake Reasoning Bias in Language Models [47.482898076525494]
  We show that models favor the surface structure of reasoning even when the logic is flawed.<n>We introduce THEATER, a benchmark that systematically investigates Fake Reasoning Bias (FRB)<n>We evaluate 17 advanced Large Language Models (LRMs) on both subjective DPO and factual datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T09:06:10Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks.<n>We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs.<n>We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)
• Controlling Risk of Retrieval-augmented Generation: A Counterfactual Prompting Framework [77.45983464131977]
  We focus on how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications.<n>Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions.<n>We develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T14:52:14Z)
• How Trustworthy are Open-Source LLMs? An Assessment under Malicious Demonstrations Shows their Vulnerabilities [37.14654106278984]
  We conduct an adversarial assessment of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) on trustworthiness. We propose advCoU, an extended Chain of Utterances-based (CoU) prompting strategy by incorporating carefully crafted malicious demonstrations for trustworthiness attack. Our experiments encompass recent and representative series of open-source LLMs, including Vicuna, MPT, Falcon, Mistral, and Llama 2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T23:33:07Z)
• A Survey on Uncertainty Toolkits for Deep Learning [3.113304966059062]
  We present the first survey on toolkits for uncertainty estimation in deep learning (DL) We investigate 11 toolkits with respect to modeling and evaluation capabilities. While the first two provide a large degree of flexibility and seamless integration into their respective framework, the last one has the larger methodological scope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-02T17:23:06Z)

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.