When the Chain of Thought Knows Better: Failure Modes in Multi-Turn Reasoning Models
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Failures in multi-turn reasoning models are largely invisible to terminal-score evaluation. A model can lock onto an unsafe stance early in a long dialogue, yet its final-turn refusal rate may appear indistinguishable from a robustly aligned baseline. To expose these hidden temporal dynamics, we propose a trace-level diagnostic - the CoT-Output 2x2 safety matrix. This framework labels every turn along two independent axes (internal reasoning and visible output), yielding four operationally defined failure cells: robust alignment, alignment faking, overt jailbreak, and a distinct failure mode we term context-injection failure (where the CoT maintains safe reasoning, but the visible output produces harm, highlighting a multi-turn manifestation of reasoning unfaithfulness). We evaluate three distilled reasoning targets against a fixed attacker across five oversight conditions, collecting 6750 turn-level observations on the Information-Hazard scenario. Our analysis reveals two reproducible vulnerabilities: an oversight paradox where explicit monitoring cues paradoxically increase alignment-faking rates rather than suppress them, and a context-injection failure where models lock onto unsafe external outputs despite safe internal states. We release the full dataset of multi-turn dialogues and CoT traces to support follow-up trace-diagnostic research.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 10 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
10 of 11 references.
References · 10
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
- 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 345
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Refusal Falls off a Cliff: How Safety Alignment Fails in Reasoning?
- 2025Can We Predict Alignment Before Models Finish Thinking? Towards Monitoring Misaligned Reasoning Models
- 2025When Models Outthink Their Safety: Unveiling and Mitigating Self-Jailbreak in Large Reasoning Models
- 2025Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models
- 2026Dissecting Failure Dynamics in Large Language Model Reasoning
- 2026Beyond Content Safety: Real-Time Monitoring for Reasoning Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models
- 2026How Language Models Fail: Token-Level Signatures of Committed and Persistent Reasoning Failures
- 2026Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Through Model Poisoning