mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Training on Documents About Monitoring Leads to CoT Obfuscation

arXiv 2605.15257 ↗First posted 14 May 2026cs.LGcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is one of the most promising tools we have for detecting model misbehavior, but its effectiveness depends on models faithfully externalizing their reasoning. Motivated by this vulnerability, we study whether monitor-aware models are capable of obfuscating their reasoning to evade detection. We use synthetic document finetuning to expose eight models to realistic pre-training-style documents describing a CoT monitor and find that monitor-aware models consistently achieve higher rates of undetected misbehavior compared to unaware controls. This effect is weaker but still present on a harder agentic task. We also show that CoT controllability, a model's ability to reshape its own reasoning trace under an imposed constraint, is closely correlated with obfuscation success across the eight models studied (r=0.800, p=0.017). Monitor-aware models placed under equal reinforcement learning optimization pressure also learn to reward-hack without triggering a CoT monitor substantially faster than unaware controls. Together, these results suggest that knowledge of monitoring combined with high CoT controllability poses a risk to CoT-based monitoring.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 25 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

Builds on

25 of 39 references.

Closest ancestors · 10

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought5 Mar
  2. 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability21 Oct
  3. 2025Output Supervision Can Obfuscate the Chain of Thought11 Oct
  4. 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
  5. 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors7 Jul
  6. 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision2 Jun
  7. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think8 May
  8. 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
  9. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
  10. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting7 May

Other references · 15

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  2. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  3. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  4. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  5. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
  6. 2025gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Cardcited by 1,386
  7. 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
  8. 2024DeepSeek-V3 Technical Reportcited by 811
  9. 2025Kimi K2: Open Agentic Intelligencecited by 567
  10. 2025Humanity's Last Examcited by 491
  11. 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
  12. 2023Taken out of context: On measuring situational awareness in LLMscited by 143
3 more
  1. 2025Activation Oracles: Training and Evaluating LLMs as General-Purpose Activation Explainerscited by 52
  2. 2026Alignment Pretraining: AI Discourse Causes Self-Fulfilling (Mis)alignmentcited by 33
  3. 2025BashArena: A Control Setting for Highly Privileged AI Agentscited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Chain-of-thought obfuscation learned from output supervision can generalise to unseen tasks
  2. 2026Noticing the Watcher: LLM Agents Can Infer CoT Monitoring from Blocking Feedback
  3. 2026Monitor Jailbreaking: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Without Encoded Reasoning
  4. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
  5. 2026Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Through Model Poisoning
  6. 2026CoT-Guard: Small Models for Strong Monitoring
  7. 2025Monitoring Monitorability
  8. 2026A False Average: Pooled CoT-Monitor Accuracy Conceals a Reasoning-Dependent Fragility