mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoring

arXiv 2602.23163 ↗First posted 26 Feb 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.CRcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are beginning to show steganographic capabilities. Such capabilities could allow misaligned models to evade oversight mechanisms. Yet principled methods to detect and quantify such behaviours are lacking. Classical definitions of steganography, and detection methods based on them, require a known reference distribution of non-steganographic signals. For the case of steganographic reasoning in LLMs, knowing such a reference distribution is not feasible; this renders these approaches inapplicable. We propose an alternative, decision-theoretic view of steganography. Our central insight is that steganography creates an asymmetry in usable information between agents who can and cannot decode the hidden content (present within a steganographic signal), and this otherwise latent asymmetry can be inferred from the agents' observable actions. To formalise this perspective, we introduce generalised V-information: a utilitarian framework for measuring the amount of usable information within some input. We use this to define the steganographic gap -- a measure that quantifies steganography by comparing the downstream utility of the steganographic signal to agents that can and cannot decode the hidden content. We empirically validate our formalism, and show that it can be used to detect, quantify, and mitigate steganographic reasoning in LLMs.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2026.

Builds on

29 of 55 references.

References · 29

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  2. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
  3. 2025s1: Simple test-time scalingcited by 1,311
  4. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
  5. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
  6. 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 825
  7. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
  8. 2024To CoT or not to CoT? Chain-of-thought helps mainly on math and symbolic reasoningcited by 257
  9. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 222
  10. 2020A Theory of Usable Information Under Computational Constraintscited by 153
  11. 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 131
  12. 2024Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via Steganographycited by 107
17 more
  1. 2025Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluatedcited by 105
  2. 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 71
  3. 2023Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoningcited by 62
  4. 2024Hidden in Plain Text: Emergence & Mitigation of Steganographic Collusion in LLMscited by 52
  5. 2022Perfectly Secure Steganography Using Minimum Entropy Couplingcited by 42
  6. 2024Stress-Testing Capability Elicitation With Password-Locked Modelscited by 42
  7. 2023Instruction-following Evaluation through Verbalizer Manipulationcited by 30
  8. 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervisioncited by 30
  9. 2019TS-RNN: Text Steganalysis Based on Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 20
  10. 2025MONA: Myopic Optimization with Non-myopic Approval Can Mitigate Multi-step Reward Hackingcited by 19
  11. 2025Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMscited by 19
  12. 2025The Elicitation Game: Evaluating Capability Elicitation Techniquescited by 15
  13. 2025A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorabilitycited by 13
  14. 2025Reasoning Models Sometimes Output Illegible Chains of Thoughtcited by 9
  15. 2025All Code, No Thought: Current Language Models Struggle to Reason in Ciphered Languagecited by 7
  16. 2024Towards Next-Generation Steganalysis: LLMs Unleash the Power of Detecting Steganographycited by 4
  17. 2024State-of-the-art Advances of Deep-learning Linguistic Steganalysis Researchcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025The Steganographic Potentials of Language Models
  2. 2026Tool Use Enables Undetectable Steganography in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  3. 2026Learning Steganography Is Easy, Learning Steganographic Reasoning Is Hard
  4. 2026NEST: Nascent Encoded Steganographic Thoughts
  5. 2026Feedback Coding Enables Inference-Time Covert Agentic Communication ↗
  6. 2026Steganalysis of Adaptive Covert Collusion in Tool-Using Agent Populations: A Black-Box, Cross-Principal Approach
  7. 2026Conceptual Steganography
  8. 2025Verifying LLM Inference to Detect Model Weight Exfiltration