ReasoningShield: Safety Detection over Reasoning Traces of Large Reasoning Models

In order to screen a prompt or a response, the recent guardrail methods generate a chain-of-thought (CoT) before they issue a verdict. This design follows a common belief that step-by-step reasoning improves a decision. However, CoT also makes the guard heavy and slow, because the model must generate many tokens before it decides. This may not match how guardrails are actually deployed. A guardrail sometimes should not be heavy and slow, and it often runs on-device, for example on an embodied robot. In this paper, we pose a question whether a safety guardrail really needs to reason. To answer this question, we train a lightweight bidirectional encoder and a reasoning guard on the same corpus, and we then remove only the reasoning while we keep everything else fixed. With this controlled same-base comparison, we show that the chain does not improve moderation accuracy. We name the resulting guard LeanGuard. A 395M label-only encoder reaches an average F1 of 82.90 $\pm$ 0.26 over public benchmarks. It matches a reasoning guard that is built on a much larger decoder, while it uses only a single forward pass over an input of at most 512 tokens. This is about a ~100x reduction in inference compute. We further show that this label-only encoder stays robust under training-label noise and retains far more recall at a strict false-positive rate than the reasoning guard, so a heavier reasoning guard is not the more robust choice either. Our finding suggests that the current guardrail benchmarks may not be hard enough to reward reasoning, and that the necessity of CoT for moderation is still not proven. We release all source codes and models including LeanGuard at https://github.com/ndb796/LeanGuard.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) generate intermediate reasoning traces that may contain unsafe content, even when their final responses appear safe. Guardrail models are designed to detect and block unsafe content, yet existing benchmarks for unsafe content detection focus primarily on prompts and final responses, leaving reasoning traces largely unexamined. Moreover, these benchmarks typically provide only binary safety labels, without evidence annotations that justify the judgments. To address these limitations, we introduce TRACE, an evidence-grounded safety evaluation benchmark that covers the entire LRM inference pipeline: prompts, reasoning traces, and final responses. TRACE includes prompts in two languages spanning nine risk categories and ten attack strategies. For each prompt, four LRMs generate reasoning traces and final responses, and we annotate the safety of each component and extract supporting evidence from the corresponding source text. Evaluating 18 guardrail models on TRACE reveals that safety judgment for reasoning traces is substantially more challenging than for prompts or final responses, and that current models struggle to accurately extract supporting evidence. These findings highlight the need for guardrail models that can reliably detect and precisely localize unsafe content across the LRM inference pipeline.

Large language models increasingly rely on explicit chain-of-thought reasoning to solve complex tasks, yet the safety of the reasoning process itself remains largely unaddressed. Existing work focuses predominantly on content safety (i.e., detecting harmful, biased, or factually incorrect outputs), while treating the underlying reasoning chain as an opaque intermediate artifact. We argue that reasoning safety constitutes a fundamental security dimension orthogonal to content safety: the requirement that a model's reasoning trajectory be logically consistent, computationally efficient, and resistant to adversarial manipulation. In this paper, we formalize reasoning safety and introduce a systematic taxonomy of nine unsafe reasoning behaviors. We then conduct a large-scale prevalence study, annotating over 4,000 reasoning chains across benign benchmarks and four state-of-the-art reasoning attacks, empirically demonstrating that all nine error types occur in practice with mechanistically interpretable signatures. To mitigate these threats, we propose the Reasoning Safety Monitor: an external, zero-shot verification framework that runs in parallel with the target LLM. It inspects each reasoning step in real time via a taxonomy-embedded prompt and dispatches an interrupt signal upon detecting unsafe behavior. Extensive evaluations show our monitor achieves up to 87.11% step-level localization accuracy, outperforming hallucination detectors and the best process reward model baselines by a substantial margin. Crucially, the monitor maintains a low false positive rate on correct reasoning paths, operates with negligible latency overhead, and exhibits robust resilience against adaptive adversarial evasion. These findings establish reasoning safety monitoring as a highly feasible and essential component for the secure deployment of large reasoning models.