CoT Monitorability
Only in system cards
Monitors read a model's chain of thought, actions or all messages across intervention, process and outcome evaluations. Scored as g-mean squared of TPR and TNR.
Suite from Guan et al. 2025. Results appear as charts by reasoning length.
Made by OpenAI Released Mar 2026 Deception and alignment Tasks kept private Last in a system card Sep 2026
Last model added Sep 2026
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
5
System cards report it, from 1 lab
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for CoT Monitorability yet.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
5 system cards report it, from 1 lab
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Sep 2026 | GPT-6 Astra system card | Monitorability g-mean² vs CoT length, CoT-only, action-only and full-context monitors, chart without printed numbers (Figure 22, 9.1.1) | Monitorability | |
| 9 Jul 2026 | GPT-5.6 Sol system card | CoT Monitorability, g-mean², chart without printed numbers (Figures 8 to 13, 7.3.1) | Monitorability | |
| 25 Jun 2026 | GPT-5.6 Sol system card | CoT Monitorability, g-mean², chart without printed numbers (Figures 8 to 13, 7.3.1) | Monitorability | |
| 23 Apr 2026 | GPT-5.5 system card | CoT Monitorability, g-mean², charts without printed numbers (Figures 7 to 10, 7.3.1) | Monitorability | |
| 5 Mar 2026 | GPT-5.4 system card | CoT Monitorability, g-mean², charts without printed numbers (Figures 3 to 6, 4.1) | Monitorability |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6% - AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
- MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy.
Muse Spark Open 98.1% - Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
- Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%