# A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23966 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.23966/

## Key facts

- Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06769/) (2024)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11473/) (2025)
- [Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15758/) (2024)
- [Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04614/) (2024)
- [When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05246/) (2025)
- [Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.15541/) (2025)
- [Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.08156/) (2025)
- [CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23575/) (2025)
- [Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01926/) (2025)
- [Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.19851/) (2025)
- [Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02737/) (2025)
- [LLMs Can Covertly Sandbag on Capability Evaluations Against Chain-of-Thought Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.00943/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.23163/) (2026)
- [Quantifying the Necessity of Chain of Thought through Opaque Serial Depth](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09786/) (2026)
- [MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.28590/) (2026)
- [C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05167/) (2026)
- [Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20508/) (2026)
- [Aligned, Orthogonal or In-conflict: When can we safely optimize Chain-of-Thought?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.30036/) (2026)
- [Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16154/) (2026)
- [How Much Does a Reasoning Summary Reveal? An Observability Ladder for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02089/) (2026)
- [CLORE: Content-Level Optimization for Reasoning Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22211/) (2026)
- [Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04928/) (2026)
- [MOLE: Detecting Insider Threats in AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.06966/) (2026)
- [Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.15989/) (2026)
- [RGDT-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Reasoning for Rule-Governed Decisions and Their Justifications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.34455/) (2026)

## 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.