Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervision
Robert MC Carthy, Joey Skaf, Luis Ibañez-Lissen, Vasil Georgiev, Connor Watts, Hannes Whittingham, Lorena González-Manzano, Cameron Tice, Edward James Young, Puria Radmard, David Lindner
Abstract
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning not only enhances large language model performance but also provides critical insights into decision-making processes, marking it as a useful tool for monitoring model intent and planning. However, recent works have shown that banning the mention of a specific example of reward hacking causes obfuscation of the undesired reasoning traces but the persistence of the undesired behavior, threatening the reliability of CoT monitoring. We provide an extension to these results with regard to the ability of models to learn a specific type of obfuscated reasoning: steganography. First, we show that penalizing the use of specific strings within load-bearing reasoning traces causes models to substitute alternative strings. Crucially, this does not alter the underlying method by which the model performs the task, demonstrating that the model can learn to steganographically encode its reasoning. We further demonstrate that models can generalize an encoding scheme. When the penalized strings belong to an overarching class, the model learns not only to substitute strings seen in training, but also develops a general encoding scheme for all members of the class which it can apply to held-out testing strings.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 915fdc81-1304-4a30-8ade-3242f391ac4fCited by top-tier papers3
- Early Signs of Steganographic Capabilities in Frontier LLMsArtur Zolkowski, Kei Nishimura-Gasparian, Robert McCarthy, Roland S. Zimmermann et al.ICLR 2026 · 22 citations
- Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of ThoughtChen Yueh-Han, Robert McCarthy, Bruce W. Lee, He He et al.ICML 2026 · 11 citations
- Dynamics Within Latent Chain-of-Thought: An Empirical Study of Causal StructureZirui Li, Xuefeng Bai, Kehai Chen, Yizhi Li et al.ICML 2026
Builds on7
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language ModelsMrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud et al.ICLR 2024 · 762 citations
- Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via SteganographySumeet Ramesh Motwani, Mikhail Baranchuk, Martin Strohmeier, Vijay Bolina et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 140 citations
- AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional SubversionRyan Greenblatt, Buck Shlegeris, Kshitij Sachan, Fabien RogerICML 2024 · 137 citations
Related papers
- Reasoning Models Sometimes Output Illegible Chains of ThoughtArun JoseNeurIPS 2025 · 11 citations
- Is it Thinking or Cheating? Detecting Implicit Reward Hacking by Measuring Reasoning EffortXinpeng Wang, Nitish Joshi, Barbara Plank, Rico Angell et al.ICLR 2026 · 27 citations
- All Code, No Thought: Language Models Struggle to Reason in Ciphered LanguageShiyuan Guo, Henry Sleight, Fabien RogerICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- Output Supervision Can Obfuscate the Chain of ThoughtJacob Drori, Luke Marks, Bryce Woodworth, Alex Cloud et al.ICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- DecepChain: Inducing Deceptive Reasoning in Large Language ModelsWei Shen, Han Wang, Haoyu Li, Huan ZhangICML 2026 · 4 citations
