mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Diagnosing Pathological Chain-of-Thought in Reasoning Models

arXiv 2602.13904 ↗First posted 14 Feb 2026cs.AIcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is fundamental to modern LLM architectures and represents a critical intervention point for AI safety. However, CoT reasoning may exhibit failure modes that we note as pathologies, which prevent it from being useful for monitoring. Prior work has identified three distinct pathologies: post-hoc rationalization, where models generate plausible explanations backwards from predetermined answers; encoded reasoning, where intermediate steps conceal information within seemingly interpretable text; and internalized reasoning, where models replace explicit reasoning with meaningless filler tokens while computing internally. To better understand and discriminate between these pathologies, we create a set of concrete metrics that are simple to implement, computationally inexpensive, and task-agnostic. To validate our approach, we develop model organisms deliberately trained to exhibit specific CoT pathologies. Our work provides a practical toolkit for assessing CoT pathologies, with direct implications for training-time monitoring.

Key facts. Cited by 2 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 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Feb 2026.

Builds on

18 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 12

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Monitoring Monitorability20 Dec
  2. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
  3. 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision2 Jun
  4. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring29 May
  5. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think8 May
  6. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
  7. 2025Measuring Chain of Thought Faithfulness by Unlearning Reasoning Steps20 Feb
  8. 2024Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space9 Dec
  9. 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models24 Apr
  10. 2023Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoning27 Oct
  11. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
  12. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting7 May

Other references · 6

  1. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  2. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
  3. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
  4. 2022ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 177
  5. 2025MME-CoT: Benchmarking Chain-of-Thought in Large Multimodal Models for Reasoning Quality, Robustness, and Efficiencycited by 125
  6. 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 86

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought
  2. 2026Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Through Model Poisoning
  3. 2025Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models
  4. 2025The CoT Encyclopedia: Analyzing, Predicting, and Controlling how a Reasoning Model will Think
  5. 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors
  6. 2026Chain of Thought Monitoring Can Fail Even When CoT Is Necessary
  7. 2025Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity
  8. 2025A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability