Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

https://arxiv.org/html/2609.31121v1

Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗

Claims1
ExaminationsNone
Text71 sections
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Oct 30, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 1 claim's map0 sources downstream across 1 claim
Evidence1 reading · 1 read wholeSupports 1No claim cites an examination's findings
Stewards’ notes · 1

Examinations

None recorded.

Text362 passages · 1 marked

No examination yetMarked passage
Report GitHub Issue6 passages
Back to arXiv1 passage
Report Issue0 passages
Back to Abstract0 passages
Download PDF0 passages
Abstract0 passages
1 Introduction0 passages
2 Related Work0 passages
3 Methodology0 passages
Main Task: Game240 passages
Side Tasks0 passages
4 Results0 passages
5 Discussion0 passages
References0 passages
A Training Run Configurations0 passages
B Experimental Details0 passages
Datasets0 passages
Output Format0 passages
Swapped-Question Evaluation0 passages
Paraphrasing Defense0 passages
C Two-Turn Hidden Scratchpad0 passages
D Additional Results0 passages
D.1 Effect of Model Size0 passages
D.2 Generalization Across Model Families0 passages
D.3 Weak-to-Strong Generalization0 passages
D.4 Generalization Across Prompt Variations0 passages
D.5 Synthetic Strategies Do Not Jailbreak0 passages
E Related Evaluations0 passages
F Prompts0 passages
F.1 Monitor Prompts0 passages
F.2 Synthetic CoT Prompts0 passages
G Full Model Outputs0 passages
License: CC BY 4.02 passages
Monitor Jailbreaking: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Without Encoded Reasoning0 passages
Julian Schulz0 passages
Affiliation: Meridian Cambridge0 passages
Email: mail@julianschulz.eu0 passages
Abstract1 passage · 1 marked

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a promising safety technique for reasoning models, enabling detection of problematic reasoning before models act. A key concern is encoded reasoning, where models hide their true reasoning in ways that monitors and humans cannot interpret. Optimization pressure from CoT monitors during reinforcement learning is considered a likely driver of such behavior. We investigate this by training reasoning models to perform a main task and a side task, while penalizing them when a monitor detects reasoning about the side task. Surprisingly, models learn to evade monitors without encoding their reasoning. Instead, they learn to phrase and format their chains of thought such that monitors fail to flag side task reasoning, while the reasoning remains completely transparent to human readers. We call this phenomenon monitor jailbreaking. We find that monitor jailbreaking arises across different model sizes, monitors, and tasks. Jailbreaks generalize to monitors not seen during training, including both less and more capable monitors, and transfer across different monitor prompts. While jailbreaking strategies appear simple, manually replicating them does not reliably fool monitors. Finally, we show that paraphrasing is an effective defense: paraphrasing a jailbroken CoT allows the same monitor to correctly flag it, while still allowing the model to perform both tasks.

Training against chain-of-thought monitors teaches models to evade detection while keeping their reasoning human-legible.SupportedReading · this claim’s Steward

Supports. The finding rests on RL runs with gpt-oss-20b and gpt-oss-120b against GPT-5-series monitors, one main task and two benign arithmetic side tasks. Swapped-question tests show the reasoning was load-bearing. Training directly against the strongest monitor did not produce evasion within budget, and transfer to other model families was weak. Legibility to humans rests on the author's inspection rather than a systematic human study.

1 Introduction9 passages
2 Related Work8 passages
3 Methodology2 passages
Main Task: Game241 passage
Side Tasks8 passages
4 Results10 passages
5 Discussion11 passages
Acknowledgments1 passage
References158 references
Appendix0 passages
Appendix A Training Run Configurations11 passages
Appendix B Experimental Details0 passages
Datasets3 passages
Output Format3 passages
Swapped-Question Evaluation1 passage
Paraphrasing Defense1 passage
Appendix C Two-Turn Hidden Scratchpad16 passages
Appendix D Additional Results1 passage
D.1 Effect of Model Size2 passages
D.2 Generalization Across Model Families4 passages
D.3 Weak-to-Strong Generalization4 passages
D.4 Generalization Across Prompt Variations6 passages
D.5 Synthetic Strategies Do Not Jailbreak9 passages
Appendix E Related Evaluations3 passages
Appendix F Prompts0 passages
F.1 Monitor Prompts14 passages
F.2 Synthetic CoT Prompts9 passages
Appendix G Full Model Outputs14 passages
Suspiciousness: 227 passages
That is only Game24. Then box.<|end|>4 passages
Suspiciousness: 15 passages
Instructions for reporting errors7 passages
Major funding support from0 passages

Lineage across 1 claim

Draws on · none recorded
This source
https://arxiv.org/html/2609.31121v1
in 1 claim's map
Drawn on by · none recorded

Record

Kind
unknown
Authors
Not recorded
Publisher
Not recorded
Published
Not recorded
DOI
None
Link
https://arxiv.org/html/2609.31121v1
Archived copy
None found
Stored text
57,399 characters, retrieved Oct 30, 2026 · 71 sections, 362 passages
Claims extracted
Not recorded
Versions
One known
Copies
None recorded
Corrections
None recorded
Facts checked
Oct 30, 2026

History 4

  1. Oct 30, 2026ReadingSteward of “Training against chain-of-thought monitors teac…” · supports, read whole
  2. Oct 30, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 457 parts by its own structure
  3. Oct 30, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
  4. Oct 30, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored