Does Reasoning Preserve Alignment? On the Trustworthiness of Large Reasoning Models

Instruction-tuned LLMs are increasingly converted into reasoning models through post-training to improve multi-step task performance. This conversion is usually optimized for reasoning accuracy, without explicitly preserving the alignment behavior of the instruction-tuned model, such as safe refusal, bias avoidance, and privacy protection. We ask: does this conversion preserve alignment? We study this question through a trustworthiness audit and find that it is not behavior-preserving by default. For a systematic analysis, we compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against matched instruction-tuned baselines across six trustworthiness dimensions: safety, toxicity, stereotyping and bias, machine ethics, privacy, and out-of-distribution robustness. We observe that reasoning models often improve on reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions, including increased toxicity, amplified stereotyping, miscalibrated refusal, and contextual privacy leakage. These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence. Overall, our results point to the broader conclusion that trustworthiness metrics are essential for evaluating reasoning models and should be reported alongside gains in reasoning capability.

Does Thinking More always Help? Understanding Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning Models

Recent trends in test-time scaling for reasoning models (e.g., OpenAI o1, DeepSeek R1) have led to a popular belief that extending thinking traces using prompts like "Wait" or "Let me rethink" can improve performance. This raises a natural question: Does thinking more at test-time truly lead to better reasoning? To answer this question, we perform a detailed empirical study across models and benchmarks, which reveals a consistent pattern of initial performance improvements from additional thinking followed by a decline, due to "overthinking". To understand this non-monotonic trend, we consider a simple probabilistic model, which reveals that additional thinking increases output variance-creating an illusion of improved reasoning while ultimately undermining precision. Thus, observed gains from "more thinking" are not true indicators of improved reasoning, but artifacts stemming from the connection between model uncertainty and evaluation metric. This suggests that test-time scaling through extended thinking is not an effective way to utilize the inference thinking budget. Recognizing these limitations, we introduce an alternative test-time scaling approach, parallel thinking, inspired by Best-of-N sampling. Our method generates multiple independent reasoning paths within the same inference budget and selects the most consistent response via majority vote, achieving up to 20% higher accuracy compared to extended thinking. This provides a simple yet effective mechanism for test-time scaling of reasoning models.

Bounded Rationality for LLMs: Satisficing Alignment at Inference-Time

Aligning large language models with humans is challenging due to the inherently multifaceted nature of preference feedback. While existing approaches typically frame this as a multi-objective optimization problem, they often overlook how humans actually make decisions. Research on bounded rationality suggests that human decision making follows satisficing strategies-optimizing primary objectives while ensuring others meet acceptable thresholds. To bridge this gap and operationalize the notion of satisficing alignment, we propose SITAlign: an inference time framework that addresses the multifaceted nature of alignment by maximizing a primary objective while satisfying threshold-based constraints on secondary criteria. We provide theoretical insights by deriving sub-optimality bounds of our satisficing based inference alignment approach. We empirically validate SITAlign's performance through extensive experimentation on multiple benchmarks. For instance, on the PKU-SafeRLHF dataset with the primary objective of maximizing helpfulness while ensuring a threshold on harmlessness, SITAlign outperforms the state-of-the-art multi objective decoding strategy by a margin of 22.3% in terms of GPT-4 win-tie rate for helpfulness reward while adhering to the threshold on harmlessness.

Align-Pro: A Principled Approach to Prompt Optimization for LLM Alignment

The alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values is critical as these models become increasingly integrated into various societal and decision-making processes. Traditional methods, such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), achieve alignment by fine-tuning model parameters, but these approaches are often computationally expensive and impractical when models are frozen or inaccessible for parameter modification. In contrast, prompt optimization is a viable alternative to RLHF for LLM alignment. While the existing literature has shown empirical promise of prompt optimization, its theoretical underpinning remains under-explored. We address this gap by formulating prompt optimization as an optimization problem and try to provide theoretical insights into the optimality of such a framework. To analyze the performance of the prompt optimization, we study theoretical suboptimality bounds and provide insights in terms of how prompt optimization depends upon the given prompter and target model. We also provide empirical validation through experiments on various datasets, demonstrating that prompt optimization can effectively align LLMs, even when parameter fine-tuning is not feasible.