mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Models

arXiv 2603.28590 ↗First posted 30 Mar 2026cs.AIcited by 8

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) can generate chains of thought (CoTs) that are not always causally responsible for their final outputs. When such a mismatch occurs, the CoT no longer faithfully reflects the actual reasons (i.e., decision-critical factors) driving the model's behavior, leading to the reduced CoT monitorability problem. This limits the use of CoTs for reliable oversight. However, a comprehensive and fully open-source benchmark for thoroughly evaluating CoT monitorability remains lacking. To address this gap, we propose MonitorBench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating CoT monitorability in LLMs. MonitorBench provides: (1) a diverse set of 1,514 test instances with carefully designed decision-critical factors across 19 tasks spanning 7 categories to characterize when CoTs can be used to monitor the factors driving LLM behavior; and (2) two prompting stress-test settings to quantify the extent to which CoT monitorability can be degraded. Extensive experiments show that CoT monitorability is a conditional property affected by the evaluated LLM, monitor LLM, and task characteristics. Across these factors, monitorability is higher when decision-critical factors shape the intermediate reasoning process, rather than merely influencing the final answer. Under stress-test prompting, most evaluated LLMs can intentionally reduce monitorability, mainly on tasks where decision-critical factors are not structurally required by the reasoning process. Overall, MonitorBench provides a basis for further research on AI control, reasoning faithfulness, stress-test monitorability, and monitoring scaffords. The code is available at https://github.com/ASTRAL-Group/MonitorBench.

Key facts. Cited by 8 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 19 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2026.

Builds on

19 of 51 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution18 Feb
  2. 2025A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability28 Oct
  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. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think8 May
  6. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
  7. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul

Other references · 12

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  2. 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,386
  3. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
  4. 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
  5. 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
  6. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
  7. 2023Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoningcited by 108
  8. 2025PersonaMem-v2: Towards Personalized Intelligence via Learning Implicit User Personas and Agentic Memorycited by 88
  9. 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 86
  10. 2025SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agentscited by 71
  11. 2026International AI Safety Report 2026cited by 22
  12. 2025AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controlscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.

8 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026On the Chain-of-Thought Monitorability of Looped Language Models
  2. 2025Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models
  3. 2025Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbosity
  4. 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?
  5. 2026The Fragility of Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Across Typologically Diverse Languages
  6. 2025Beyond External Monitors: Enhancing Transparency of Large Language Models for Easier Monitoring
  7. 2025FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
  8. 2026Making LLMs Say What They Think: Measuring and Improving CoT-Interpretability Alignment