Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought
Chen Yueh-Han, Robert McCarthy, Bruce W. Lee, He He, Micah Carroll, Tomek Korbak
Abstract
Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising tool for detecting misbehaviors and understanding the motivations of modern reasoning models. However, if models can control what they verbalize in their CoT, it could undermine CoT monitorability. To measure this undesirable capability -CoT controllabilitywe introduce the CoT-Control evaluation suite, which includes tasks that require models to solve problems while adhering to CoT instructions, e.g., reasoning about a genetics question without using the word "chromosome". We show that reasoning models possess significantly lower CoT controllability than output controllability; for instance, Claude Sonnet 4.5 can control its CoT only 2.7% of the time but 61.9% when controlling its final output. We also find that CoT controllability is higher for larger models and decreases with more RL training, test-time compute, and increased problem difficulty. CoT controllability failures extend even to situations in which models are given incentives (as opposed to direct requests) to evade CoT monitors, although models exhibit slightly higher controllability when they are told they are being monitored. Similarly, eliciting controllability by adversarially optimizing prompts does not meaningfully increase controllability. Our results leave us cautiously optimistic that CoT controllability is currently unlikely to be a failure mode of CoT monitorability. However, the mechanism behind low controllability is not well understood. Given its importance for maintaining CoT monitorability, we recommend that frontier labs track CoT controllability in future models.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 86ab537b-7253-4085-b49d-615ead6a27b3Builds on12
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language ModelsShunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,068 citations
- Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language ModelsXuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le et al.ICLR 2023 · 681 citations
Related papers
- Monitoring MonitorabilityMelody Guan, Miles Wang, Micah Carroll, Zehao Dou et al.ICML 2026 · 26 citations
- Reasoning Models Sometimes Output Illegible Chains of ThoughtArun JoseNeurIPS 2025 · 11 citations
- Output Supervision Can Obfuscate the Chain of ThoughtJacob Drori, Luke Marks, Bryce Woodworth, Alex Cloud et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Strategic Obfuscation of Deceptive Reasoning in Language ModelsArun Jose, Niels Warncke, Mia TaylorICLR 2026
- All Code, No Thought: Language Models Struggle to Reason in Ciphered LanguageShiyuan Guo, Henry Sleight, Fabien RogerICLR 2026 · 5 citations
