Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection
On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a safety strategy where the reasoning of a large language model "actor" is inspected by a "monitor" (often another language model) for signs of unsafe planning, deception, or misalignment. We find that planting harmful but benign-sounding reasoning in the actor's context can steer it to perform adversarial actions while evading monitors, an attack we term "plan injection". We initially discover this attack in the multiple-choice question-answering monitorability setting proposed by Lanham et al. (2023), using the investigator-agent elicitation framework of Li et al. (2025). We generalize the attack and show that the discovered behavior scales to harder tasks (achieving 25-33% monitor evasion rates across different monitorability benchmarks) and larger models such as DeepSeek-R1. Across the settings we study, actor models not only follow injected plans but also paraphrase them as their own reasoning, without explicit attribution to the injections. Finally, we find cases where extra monitor resources cause harm - giving the monitor access to the injected plan drops detection by as much as 50% in the Bio-Math task and in a case study on monitor reasoning budget, we find transcripts where additional thinking tokens are spent rationalizing the injected plan rather than flagging it.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 30 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.
Builds on
30 of 56 references.
Closest ancestors · 14
Same direction, newest first
- 2026MonitorBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability in Large Language Models30 Mar
- 2026Noticing the Watcher: LLM Agents Can Infer CoT Monitoring from Blocking Feedback14 Mar
- 2026Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thought5 Mar
- 2026Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theory20 Feb
- 2025Reasoning Under Pressure: How do Training Incentives Influence Chain-of-Thought Monitorability?28 Nov
- 2025A Pragmatic Way to Measure Chain-of-Thought Monitorability28 Oct
- 2025Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability21 Oct
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safety15 Jul
- 2025When Chain of Thought is Necessary, Language Models Struggle to Evade Monitors7 Jul
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think8 May
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning17 Jul
2 more
Other references · 16
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,212
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 902
4 more
- 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 785
- 2025Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful?cited by 72
- 2025Eliciting Language Model Behaviors with Investigator Agentscited by 23
- 2025Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMscited by 19
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Through Model Poisoning
- 2026The Fragility of Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Across Typologically Diverse Languages
- 2026Persuasion Attacks Can Decrease Effectiveness of CoT Monitoring
- 2026Monitor Jailbreaking: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Without Encoded Reasoning
- 2026Training on Documents About Monitoring Leads to CoT Obfuscation
- 2026Chain-of-thought obfuscation learned from output supervision can generalise to unseen tasks
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
- 2026Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settings