https://arxiv.org/html/2609.31121v1
Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗
Stewards’ notes · 1
- Training against chain-of-thought monitors teaches models to evade detection while keeping their reasoning human-legible.
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. Oct 30, 2026
Examinations
None recorded.
Text362 passages · 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.
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.
Lineage across 1 claim
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
- Oct 30, 2026ReadingSteward of “Training against chain-of-thought monitors teac…” · supports, read whole
- Oct 30, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 457 parts by its own structure
- Oct 30, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Oct 30, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored