mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability

arXiv 2510.23966 ↗First posted 28 Oct 2025cs.LG cs.SEcited by 13

On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) monitoring offers a unique opportunity for AI safety, this opportunity could be lost through shifts in training practices or model architecture. To help preserve monitorability, we propose a pragmatic way to measure two components of it: legibility (whether the reasoning can be followed by a human) and coverage (whether the CoT contains all the reasoning needed for a human to also produce the final output). We implement these metrics with an autorater prompt that enables any capable LLM to compute the legibility and coverage of existing CoTs. After sanity-checking our prompted autorater with synthetic CoT degradations, we apply it to several frontier models on challenging benchmarks, finding that they exhibit high monitorability. We present these metrics, including our complete autorater prompt, as a tool for developers to track how design decisions impact monitorability. While the exact prompt we share is still a preliminary version under ongoing development, we are sharing it now in the hopes that others in the community will find it useful. Our method helps measure the default monitorability of CoT - it should be seen as a complement, not a replacement, for the adversarial stress-testing needed to test robustness against deliberately evasive models.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 18 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Oct 2025.

Builds on

18 of 21 references.

Closest ancestors · 10

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability21 Oct
  2. 2025LLMs Can Covertly Sandbag on Capability Evaluations Against Chain-of-Thought Monitoring31 Jul
  3. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
  4. 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors7 Jul
  5. 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision2 Jun
  6. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring29 May
  7. 2024Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space9 Dec
  8. 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models24 Apr
  9. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
  10. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting7 May

Other references · 8

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  2. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
  3. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  4. 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
  5. 2024Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Modelscited by 104
  6. 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 71
  7. 2025Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful?cited by 69
  8. 2025Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMscited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 13.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Monitoring Monitorability
  2. 2025Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models
  3. 2025Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity
  4. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think
  5. 2026Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theory
  6. 2026Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settings
  7. 2025A Concrete Roadmap towards Safety Cases based on Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
  8. 2026Diagnosing Pathological Chain-of-Thought in Reasoning Models