A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability
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
- 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability21 Oct
- 2025LLMs Can Covertly Sandbag on Capability Evaluations Against Chain-of-Thought Monitoring31 Jul
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
- 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors7 Jul
- 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision2 Jun
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring29 May
- 2024Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space9 Dec
- 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models24 Apr
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting7 May
Other references · 8
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,146
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,258
- 2024Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Modelscited by 104
- 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 71
- 2025Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful?cited by 69
- 2025Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMscited by 19
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 13.
13 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2026Quantifying the Necessity of Chain of Thought through Opaque Serial Depthcited by 7
- 2026MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2026A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoringcited by 6
- 2026C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 6
- 2026Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Modelscited by 5
- 2026Aligned, Orthogonal or In-conflict: When can we safely optimize Chain-of-Thought?cited by 3
- 2026Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Executioncited by 2
- 2026How Much Does a Reasoning Summary Reveal? An Observability Ladder for Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026CLORE: Content-Level Optimization for Reasoning Efficiencycited by 0
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?cited by 0
- 2026MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injectioncited by 0
- 2026RGDT-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Reasoning for Rule-Governed Decisions and Their Justifications28 Sep 2026
- 2026Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection14 Sep 2026
- 2026MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents7 Sep 2026
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?5 Aug 2026
- 2026How Much Does a Reasoning Summary Reveal? An Observability Ladder for Large Language Models3 Aug 2026
- 2026CLORE: Content-Level Optimization for Reasoning Efficiency21 May 2026
- 2026Aligned, Orthogonal or In-conflict: When can we safely optimize Chain-of-Thought?31 Mar 2026
- 2026MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Models30 Mar 2026
- 2026Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Models20 Mar 2026
- 2026Quantifying the Necessity of Chain of Thought through Opaque Serial Depth10 Mar 2026
- 2026C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning5 Mar 2026
- 2026A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoring26 Feb 2026
- 2026Quantifying the Necessity of Chain of Thought through Opaque Serial Depthcited by 7
- 2026MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2026C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 6
- 2026Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Modelscited by 5
- 2026Aligned, Orthogonal or In-conflict: When can we safely optimize Chain-of-Thought?cited by 3
- 2026Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Executioncited by 2
- 2026How Much Does a Reasoning Summary Reveal? An Observability Ladder for Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026CLORE: Content-Level Optimization for Reasoning Efficiencycited by 0
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?cited by 0
- 2026Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injectioncited by 0
- 2026RGDT-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Reasoning for Rule-Governed Decisions and Their Justificationscited by 0
- 2026RGDT-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Reasoning for Rule-Governed Decisions and Their Justifications28 Sep 2026
- 2026Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection14 Sep 2026
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?5 Aug 2026
- 2026How Much Does a Reasoning Summary Reveal? An Observability Ladder for Large Language Models3 Aug 2026
- 2026CLORE: Content-Level Optimization for Reasoning Efficiency21 May 2026
- 2026Aligned, Orthogonal or In-conflict: When can we safely optimize Chain-of-Thought?31 Mar 2026
- 2026MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Models30 Mar 2026
- 2026Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Models20 Mar 2026
- 2026Quantifying the Necessity of Chain of Thought through Opaque Serial Depth10 Mar 2026
- 2026C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning5 Mar 2026
- 2026Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution18 Feb 2026
- 2026MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents7 Sep 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Monitoring Monitorability
- 2025Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models
- 2025Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think
- 2026Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theory
- 2026Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settings
- 2025A Concrete Roadmap towards Safety Cases based on Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
- 2026Diagnosing Pathological Chain-of-Thought in Reasoning Models