arXiv:2608. 03838v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning-based large language model (LLM) safeguards improve safety classification accuracy by generating explicit rationales before making decisions.
arXiv:2608. 03838v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning-based guard models improve LLM safeguards, but decoding explicit rationales for every interaction makes them costly to deploy.
arXiv:2606. 26686v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In order to screen a prompt or a response, the recent guardrail methods generate a chain-of-thought (CoT) before they issue a verdict.
arXiv:2606. 25013v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Today's reasoning models use thinking tokens to attain stronger performance on benchmarks than their instruction-tuned counterparts.
arXiv:2605.11467v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reasoning models post-hoc rationalize answers they have already committed to internally, producing chains of *reasoning theater*: deliberativ...
arXiv:2606. 08919v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person.
arXiv:2607. 08173v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Black box auditing of language models is an essential pre-deployment tool, but it may miss subtle forms of misalignment and hidden information.
arXiv:2608. 03745v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning offers a promising window into model monitoring.
The paper introduces COLAGUARD, a guardrail model that embeds multi-step safety reasoning into a continuous latent space, allowing efficient hidden-state propagation during inference. Compared to existing methods, COLAGUARD achieves an 8.24‑point macro‑F1 improvement over Llama Guard 3 and matches the explicit reasoning baseline GuardReasoner, while delivering a 12.9× speedup and a 22.4× reduction in token usage across ten moderation settings and eight safety benchmarks.
The paper investigates how agentic systems decide between acting and abstaining, focusing on the fidelity of their reasoning explanations. Using Qwen3‑8B in a multi‑party conversation setting, the authors compare direct decision policies, reasoning policies, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement learning, finding a trade‑off: strong direct policies yield higher performance but no traceable reasoning, while reasoning policies provide an audit trail at the cost of lower recall. The study also uncovers that exposing reasoning can alter the agent’s policy and that common faithfulness metrics may overstate the alignment between reasoning and decisions.
AUDITPLAN introduces a plan-then-answer method for safety alignment in language models, where the model first generates a compact structured safety plan before responding. The plan includes a threat label, intended action, and explicit constraints, allowing machine‑checkable auditing while remaining hidden from end users. Training combines supervised fine‑tuning with reinforcement learning using the FAITHGATE reward, which only rewards correct plans, thereby reducing unsafe shortcuts and improving robustness across Qwen model variants.
arXiv:2609.38107v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chain-of-thought traces are widely read as records of how models reach their answers, informing debugging, agent auditing, and claims about reasoning...
AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.