When Safety Fails Before the Answer: Benchmarking Harmful Behavior Detection in Reasoning Chains

Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce complex, multi-step reasoning traces, yet safety evaluation remains focused on final outputs, overlooking how harm emerges during reasoning. When jailbroken, harm does not appear instantaneously but unfolds through distinct behavioral steps such as suppressing refusal, rationalizing compliance, decomposing harmful tasks, and concealing risk. However, no existing benchmark captures this process at sentence-level granularity within reasoning traces -- a key step toward reliable safety monitoring, interventions, and systematic failure diagnosis. To address this gap, we introduce HarmThoughts, a benchmark for step-wise safety evaluation of reasoning traces. \ourdataset is built on our proposed harm taxonomy of 16 harmful reasoning behaviors across four functional groups that characterize how harm propagates rather than what harm is produced. The dataset consists of 56,931 sentences from 1,018 reasoning traces generated by four model families, each annotated with fine-grained sentence-level behavioral labels. Using HarmThoughts, we analyze harm propagation patterns across reasoning traces, identifying common behavioral trajectories and drift points where reasoning transitions from safe to unsafe. Finally, we systematically compare white-box and black-box detectors on the task of identifying harmful reasoning behaviours on HarmThoughts. Our results show that existing detectors struggle with fine-grained behavior detection in reasoning traces, particularly for nuanced categories within harm emergence and execution, highlighting a critical gap in process-level safety monitoring. HarmThoughts is available publicly at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ishitakakkar-10/HarmThoughts

Fluent but Unfeeling: The Emotional Blind Spots of Language Models

The versatility of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language understanding has made them increasingly popular in mental health research. While many studies explore LLMs' capabilities in emotion recognition, a critical gap remains in evaluating whether LLMs align with human emotions at a fine-grained level. Existing research typically focuses on classifying emotions into predefined, limited categories, overlooking more nuanced expressions. To address this gap, we introduce EXPRESS, a benchmark dataset curated from Reddit communities featuring 251 fine-grained, self-disclosed emotion labels. Our comprehensive evaluation framework examines predicted emotion terms and decomposes them into eight basic emotions using established emotion theories, enabling a fine-grained comparison. Systematic testing of prevalent LLMs under various prompt settings reveals that accurately predicting emotions that align with human self-disclosed emotions remains challenging. Qualitative analysis further shows that while certain LLMs generate emotion terms consistent with established emotion theories and definitions, they sometimes fail to capture contextual cues as effectively as human self-disclosures. These findings highlight the limitations of LLMs in fine-grained emotion alignment and offer insights for future research aimed at enhancing their contextual understanding.