mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

NEST: Nascent Encoded Steganographic Thoughts

arXiv 2602.14095 ↗First posted 15 Feb 2026cs.AI cs.CRcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Monitoring chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is a foundational safety technique for large language model agents; however, this oversight is compromised if models learn to conceal their reasoning. We explore steganographic CoT--where models hide secret reasoning within innocuous text--to inform risk assessment and deployment policies. Steganographic reasoning requires two skills in a single forward pass: computing an intermediate result, and embedding it into a coherent cover that answers an unrelated question. Drawing on our taxonomy of steganographic and non-steganographic CoT types, we systematically evaluate the limits of prompt-elicited steganographic CoT capability across 34 models, ranging from past generations to the current frontier. We measure monitor evasion, refusal rates, encoding fidelity, and hidden task accuracy across five datasets, comparing against plain reasoning, direct answer, and filler-token baselines. The two experiments isolate the two sub-skills: a reasoning tasks sweep tests joint reason-and-embed, while a counting task hands the model a known numerical sequence and tests embedding alone--a necessary precondition for stego reasoning. Current frontier models cannot sustain joint reason-and-embed: a paired McNemar comparison shows the steganographic channel is dominated by an filler-token baseline on every (model, family) cell. The encoding-only floor, by contrast, is cleared--Claude Opus~4.5 reaches 92% per-number partial accuracy on 4-digit sequences and saturates at 100% exact-match on length-8 single-digit sequences--establishing that the binding constraint on stego CoT is the joint reasoning-plus-encoding load, not raw channel capacity. Our findings underscore the need for continuous evaluation of steganographic risk and provide a methodology to preemptively detect and evaluate hidden reasoning that might empower misaligned scheming and deceptive behavior.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 19 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Feb 2026.

Builds on

19 of 32 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
  2. 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors7 Jul
  3. 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision2 Jun
  4. 2025The Steganographic Potentials of Language Models6 May
  5. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
  6. 2024Let's Think Dot by Dot: Hidden Computation in Transformer Language Models24 Apr
  7. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting7 May

Other references · 12

  1. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  2. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  3. 2024Foundational Challenges in Assuring Alignment and Safety of Large Language Modelscited by 193
  4. 2024Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via Steganographycited by 107
  5. 2022Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?cited by 101
  6. 2024Hidden in Plain Text: Emergence & Mitigation of Steganographic Collusion in LLMscited by 52
  7. 2022Perfectly Secure Steganography Using Minimum Entropy Couplingcited by 42
  8. 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awarenesscited by 30
  9. 2025MONA: Myopic Optimization with Non-myopic Approval Can Mitigate Multi-step Reward Hackingcited by 19
  10. 2025Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMscited by 19
  11. 2025All Code, No Thought: Current Language Models Struggle to Reason in Ciphered Languagecited by 7
  12. 2025Hiding in Plain Sight: A Steganographic Approach to Stealthy LLM Jailbreakscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Conceptual Steganography
  2. 2026Learning Steganography Is Easy, Learning Steganographic Reasoning Is Hard
  3. 2026Faithfulness as Information Flow: Evaluating and Training Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
  4. 2026The Fragility of Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Across Typologically Diverse Languages
  5. 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability
  6. 2026Lie to Me: How Faithful Is Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Reasoning Models?
  7. 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?
  8. 2026Noticing the Watcher: LLM Agents Can Infer CoT Monitoring from Blocking Feedback