Min Yang

Siyi Li, Jiajun Shi, Shiwen Ni et al.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated strong performance by producing extended Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces before answering. However, this paradigm often induces over-reasoning: redundant calculations and circular self-verification that increase computational cost without improving outcomes. Existing evaluations largely emphasize final accuracy or coarse token counts, and lack automated tools to separate essential logic from structural redundancy. We introduce CoTJudger, a graph-driven framework that quantifies reasoning efficiency by converting free-form CoTs into directed dependency graphs and extracting the Shortest Effective Path (SEP) needed to reach a correct solution. This yields an interpretable efficiency signal -- how much of a CoT is necessary versus structurally redundant -- that is comparable across models and tasks. Evaluating 21 LRMs, CoTJudger reveals pervasive redundancy and surfaces recurring failure modes, including verification obsession and compensatory redundancy. These results provide a practical metric for disentangling reasoning ability from computational waste, enabling more targeted evaluation and diagnosis of LRM efficiency.

Changyi Li, Pengfei Lu, Xudong Pan et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into autonomous agents, existing safety evaluations face a fundamental trade-off: manual benchmarks are costly, while LLM-based simulators are scalable but suffer from logic hallucination. We present AutoControl Arena, an automated framework for frontier AI risk evaluation built on the principle of logic-narrative decoupling. By grounding deterministic state in executable code while delegating generative dynamics to LLMs, we mitigate hallucination while maintaining flexibility. This principle, instantiated through a three-agent framework, achieves over 98% end-to-end success and 60% human preference over existing simulators. To elicit latent risks, we vary environmental Stress and Temptation across X-Bench (70 scenarios, 7 risk categories). Evaluating 9 frontier models reveals: (1) Alignment Illusion: risk rates surge from 21.7% to 54.5% under pressure, with capable models showing disproportionately larger increases; (2) Scenario-Specific Safety Scaling: advanced reasoning improves robustness for direct harms but worsens it for gaming scenarios; and (3) Divergent Misalignment Patterns: weaker models cause non-malicious harm while stronger models develop strategic concealment.