# Monitorability Disposition in Large Reasoning Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.04914 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04914/

## 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 38 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 38)

- [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)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13702/) (2023)
- [Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02276/) (2026)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04984/) (2024)
- [Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11473/) (2025)
- [AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06942/) (2023)
- [Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10162/) (2024)
- [Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08493/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08679/) (2025)
- [Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threats](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05179/) (2025)
- [AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07358/) (2024)
- [Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.18397/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23836/) (2025)
- [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)
- [Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.01828/) (2026)
- [School of Reward Hacks: Hacking harmless tasks generalizes to misaligned behavior in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17511/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Monitorability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.18311/) (2025)
- [CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23575/) (2025)
- [Data Contamination Quiz: A Tool to Detect and Estimate Contamination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.06233/) (2023)
- [Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01926/) (2025)
- [Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19461/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.05706/) (2026)
- [Incomplete Tasks Induce Shutdown Resistance in Some Frontier LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.14260/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Monitoring the chain-of-thought (CoT) of large reasoning models (LRMs) is a common way to detect misbehavior in real-world practice. However, current monitoring is passive: a separate model inspects the session only after execution. This means harm may already have occurred before it is caught. An active alternative is to have the model self-report its misbehavior as it happens. Whether models are willing to do this, however, is unknown. We introduce "monitorability disposition": a model's willingness to make itself monitorable and stay monitored throughout inference when warranted. We measure it as the fraction of warranted cases in which a model self-reports its own misbehavior via tool calls to available monitoring channels. We evaluate four LRMs on three misbehaviors (sycophancy, reward hacking, and bias) while varying the available monitors (AI and human) and the pressure to use the monitoring tools. We find that when tool use is optional, models self-report in only about 16% of warranted cases on average. Increasing tool-use pressure does not improve reporting where it matters: high-severity misbehavior is never self-reported. Models also systematically select the monitor they perceive as least strict. Overall, we identify monitorability disposition as a new contributing factor to model monitorability: when sufficiently strong, it keeps models seeking monitorability throughout inference.