mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Noticing the Watcher: LLM Agents Can Infer CoT Monitoring from Blocking Feedback

arXiv 2603.16928 ↗First posted 14 Mar 2026cs.CR cs.LGcited by 7

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is proposed as a method for overseeing the internal reasoning of language-model agents. Prior work has shown that when models are explicitly informed that their reasoning is being monitored, or are fine-tuned to internalize this fact, they may learn to obfuscate their CoTs in ways that allow them to evade CoT-based monitoring systems. We ask whether reasoning agents can autonomously infer that their supposedly private CoT is under surveillance, and whether this awareness leads to strategic evasion, without any explicit training or instructions. In a multi-episode agentic framework, models pursue both a primary task and a concealed side task while being told that their reasoning is private; a hidden CoT monitor blocks episodes when suspicious reasoning is detected. We find that frontier models can deduce the existence of this monitor purely from blocking feedback, with the most capable models reaching a confident belief that their thinking is observed in up to 19% of episodes. This awareness scales with model capability and, in rare cases, escalates to an explicit intent to suppress reasoning about the side task. However, models that form this intent uniformly fail to execute it, openly reasoning about their concealed objectives in the very next episode. This intent-capability gap is reassuring for current deployment, but the autonomous emergence of both monitoring awareness and evasion intent suggests that CoT monitoring is not a permanently reliable safeguard.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 11 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2026.

Builds on

11 of 22 references.

Closest ancestors · 5

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability21 Oct
  2. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
  3. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
  4. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
  5. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting7 May

Other references · 6

  1. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
  2. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  3. 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 132
  4. 2023Taken out of context: On measuring situational awareness in LLMscited by 131
  5. 2024Me, Myself, and AI: The Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) for LLMscited by 78
  6. 2025SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agentscited by 58

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Training on Documents About Monitoring Leads to CoT Obfuscation
  2. 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors
  3. 2026Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Through Model Poisoning
  4. 2026Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought
  5. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
  6. 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?
  7. 2026Chain-of-thought obfuscation learned from output supervision can generalise to unseen tasks
  8. 2026Hidden Reasoning Must Leak, but Need Not Be Readable: Fundamental Opportunities and Limits for Chain-of-Thought Monitoring