Good Papers

Measuring Weak-to-Strong Legibility of Reasoning Models

This paper defines weak-to-strong legibility for reasoning models and argues existing efficiency metrics miss thoroughness needed for weak monitors.

Dani Roytburg, Shreya Sridhar, Daphne Ippolito

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 3 · Wed, Dec 9, 10:00 AM–1:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

72%
OverallHighly rated
?
OverallHighly ratedVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel8/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 3/10
strict 0/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

Reasoning language models (RLMs) and the intermediate chains of thought they emit play an increasingly central role in multi-agent setups such as inter-model monitoring or distillation into smaller models. When agents at different capability tiers must cooperate, strong models need to produce traces digestible by weaker ones. We refer to this goal as "weak-to-strong legibility". Trustworthiness of large models depends in part on this legibility property. For safety oversight in particular, adoption of weak monitors may become a standard for reliability scaffolds on a healthy budget. Legibility requires that the shape of these decision-making traces takes some form accessible to weaker monitors. Existing efficiency-based metrics for legibility fail to capture "thoroughness", instead focusing on conciseness.