mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMs

arXiv 2507.02737 ↗First posted 3 Jul 2025cs.CR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 19

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Monitoring Large Language Model (LLM) outputs is crucial for mitigating risks from misuse and misalignment. However, LLMs could evade monitoring through steganography: Encoding hidden information within seemingly benign generations. In this paper, we evaluate the steganography capabilities in frontier LLMs to better understand the risk they pose. We focus on two types of steganography: passing encoded messages and performing encoded reasoning. We find that current models are unable to encode short messages in their outputs without a monitor noticing under standard affordances. They can succeed, however, if given additional affordances like using an unmonitored scratchpad and coordinating on what encoding scheme to use. We additionally find early signs that models can perform basic encoded reasoning in a simple state-tracking problem. This includes some ability to reason with their own and pre-defined schemes, including encoding schemes such as Hexadecimal. Despite this, they can rarely hide reasoning subtly within a cover task to fool a monitor. Overall, our results indicate that current LLMs exhibit nascent steganographic capabilities. While these capabilities are likely insufficient to bypass well-designed monitors at present, this could change in the future.

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 7; 2026: 12.

19 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorabilitycited by 22
  2. 2025Measuring Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Faithfulness and Verbositycited by 17
  3. 2025A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorabilitycited by 13
  4. 2026Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theorycited by 10
  5. 2026A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoringcited by 8
  6. 2026Stateless Yet Not Forgetful: Implicit Memory as a Hidden Channel in LLMscited by 6
  7. 2025State over Tokens: Characterizing the Role of Reasoning Tokenscited by 5
  8. 2026Chain-of-thought obfuscation learned from output supervision can generalise to unseen taskscited by 5
  9. 2025Unsupervised decoding of encoded reasoning using language model interpretabilitycited by 4
  10. 2025A Concrete Roadmap towards Safety Cases based on Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 2
  11. 2025SteganoBackdoor: Evading Data-Poisoning Defenses via Steganographic Backdoorscited by 1
  12. 2026Despite Instructions: Frontier Agents Improvise Covert Channels at Test Timecited by 1
7 more
  1. 2026NEST: Nascent Encoded Steganographic Thoughtscited by 0
  2. 2026Risk Reporting for Developers' Internal AI Model Usecited by 0
  3. 2026CoT-Guard: Small Models for Strong Monitoringcited by 0
  4. 2026SchemeArena: Factorized Stress Testing of Scheming in LLM Agentscited by 0
  5. 2026Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injectioncited by 0
  6. 2026Monitor Jailbreaking: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Without Encoded Reasoningcited by 0
  7. 2026Learning Steganography Is Easy, Learning Steganographic Reasoning Is Hardcited by 0