# TRACE: An Evidence-Grounded Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Large Reasoning Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24232 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.24232/

## 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 8 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM safety and security / [Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/safety/safety-alignment-refusal-and-guardrails/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02276/) (2026)
- [ShieldGemma: Generative AI Content Moderation Based on Gemma](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21772/) (2024)
- [Qwen3Guard Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14276/) (2025)
- [AEGIS: Online Adaptive AI Content Safety Moderation with Ensemble of LLM Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05993/) (2024)
- [YuFeng-XGuard: A Reasoning-Centric, Interpretable, and Flexible Guardrail Model for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15588/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) generate intermediate reasoning traces that may contain unsafe content, even when their final responses appear safe. Guardrail models are designed to detect and block unsafe content, yet existing benchmarks for unsafe content detection focus primarily on prompts and final responses, leaving reasoning traces largely unexamined. Moreover, these benchmarks typically provide only binary safety labels, without evidence annotations that justify the judgments. To address these limitations, we introduce TRACE, an evidence-grounded safety evaluation benchmark that covers the entire LRM inference pipeline: prompts, reasoning traces, and final responses. TRACE includes prompts in two languages spanning nine risk categories and ten attack strategies. For each prompt, four LRMs generate reasoning traces and final responses, and we annotate the safety of each component and extract supporting evidence from the corresponding source text. Evaluating 18 guardrail models on TRACE reveals that safety judgment for reasoning traces is substantially more challenging than for prompts or final responses, and that current models struggle to accurately extract supporting evidence. These findings highlight the need for guardrail models that can reliably detect and precisely localize unsafe content across the LRM inference pipeline.