Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the effectiveness of thinking tokens in enhancing the safety and alignment of reasoning models, revealing that their use does not always lead to improved outcomes. By analyzing models from the GPT-OSS, Qwen, Olmo, and Phi families, the authors find that the compliance or refusal decisions are largely predictable from the first token's hidden representation, with minimal change in outcomes after the initial phase of thinking. The findings challenge the assumption that thinking tokens foster genuine deliberation, indicating that current safety interventions may inadvertently lead to over-refusal and diminish true deliberative processes.
Thinking tokens may create an illusion of deliberation in reasoning models, but they often lock in decisions early, undermining safety efforts.
Today's reasoning models use thinking tokens to attain stronger performance on benchmarks than their instruction-tuned counterparts. It is also generally believed that this more"deliberative"mode should improve alignment and safety, by providing the model a safe space to consider whether its planned answer to a request violates its safety principles. We present evidence that this intuition is not always correct. Across frontier open-weight reasoning models spanning GPT-OSS, Qwen, Olmo, and Phi families, we find that the eventual refusal/compliance outcome is already strongly predictable via a trained head on the first token's hidden representation ($0.84$-$0.95$ AUROC and $\sim88\%$ balanced accuracy for predicting refusal/compliance) before any visible thinking. The thinking process turns out to be more akin to prefix completion than to deliberative revision, with the final outcome rarely changing after the first $\sim20\%$ of thinking, despite giving the appearance of deliberation at the text level ($\sim74\%$ of text-level deliberations occur when the response distribution is already locked to one refusal/compliance side). We also find that existing inference-time and training-based safety interventions, despite being motivated by the goal of inducing deliberation, largely shift model behavior toward over-refusal while suppressing already-scarce deliberation signals. Our results suggest that safety behavior in current reasoning models is much less deliberative than commonly assumed, and highlight the need for methods that induce real safety deliberation.
