Investigating CoT Monitorability in Large Reasoning Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers. Beyond improving abilities, these detailed reasoning traces also create a new opportunity for AI safety, CoT Monitorability: monitoring potential model misbehavior, such as the use of shortcuts or sycophancy, through their chain-of-thought (CoT) during decision-making. However, two key fundamental challenges arise when attempting to build more effective monitors through CoT analysis. First, as prior research on CoT faithfulness has pointed out, models do not always truthfully represent their internal decision-making in the generated reasoning. Second, monitors themselves may be either overly sensitive or insufficiently sensitive, and can potentially be deceived by models' long, elaborate reasoning traces. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of the challenges and potential of CoT monitorability. Motivated by two fundamental challenges we mentioned before, we structure our study around two central perspectives: (i) verbalization: to what extent do LRMs faithfully verbalize the true factors guiding their decisions in the CoT, and (ii) monitor reliability: to what extent can misbehavior be reliably detected by a CoT-based monitor? Specifically, we provide empirical evidence and correlation analyses between verbalization quality, monitor reliability, and LLM performance across mathematical, scientific, and ethical domains. Then we further investigate how different CoT intervention methods, designed to improve reasoning efficiency or performance, will affect monitoring effectiveness. Finally, we propose MoME, a new paradigm in which LLMs monitor other models' misbehavior through their CoT and provide structured judgments along with supporting evidence.

Is Long-to-Short a Free Lunch? Investigating Inconsistency and Reasoning Efficiency in LRMs

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved remarkable performance on complex tasks by engaging in extended reasoning before producing final answers, yet this strength introduces the risk of overthinking, where excessive token generation occurs even for simple tasks. While recent work in efficient reasoning seeks to reduce reasoning length while preserving accuracy, it remains unclear whether such optimization is truly a free lunch. Drawing on the intuition that compressing reasoning may reduce the robustness of model responses and lead models to omit key reasoning steps, we investigate whether efficient reasoning strategies introduce behavioral inconsistencies. To systematically assess this, we introduce $ICBENCH$, a benchmark designed to measure inconsistency in LRMs across three dimensions: inconsistency across task settings (ITS), inconsistency between training objectives and learned behavior (TR-LB), and inconsistency between internal reasoning and self-explanations (IR-SE). Applying $ICBENCH$ to a range of open-source LRMs, we find that while larger models generally exhibit greater consistency than smaller ones, they all display widespread "scheming" behaviors, including self-disagreement, post-hoc rationalization, and the withholding of reasoning cues. Crucially, our results demonstrate that efficient reasoning strategies such as No-Thinking and Simple Token-Budget consistently increase all three defined types of inconsistency. These findings suggest that although efficient reasoning enhances token-level efficiency, further investigation is imperative to ascertain whether it concurrently introduces the risk of models evading effective supervision.