Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enables multimodal large reasoning models (MLRMs) to solve complex visual problems, but also exposes them to CoT hijacking: an adversary implants a backdoor through poisoned fine-tuning so that a visual trigger induces a hijacking turn, redirecting an otherwise faithful reasoning chain to an attacker-chosen answer. However, since the hijack acts within the reasoning chain, existing multimodal backdoor defenses designed for MLLMs that answer directly struggle to detect it. Moreover, inspecting the chain itself does not reliably expose the hijack, since the hijacking turn can resemble honest self-correction in form. In this paper, we find that honest reasoning tends to revise its answer at high-entropy "aha moments", whereas a hijack can overturn a confident answer through a near-deterministic turn. To quantify this contrast, we formalize this phenomenon as belief inertia, the cumulative next-token entropy of a reasoning span minus the answer-belief revision it induces, with markedly lower values for hijacked spans than for honest reasoning spans. Since hijacking tokens are also image-dependent, we further improve detection by restricting the measure to image-dependent spans, yielding visual belief inertia (VBI). Building on this, we propose InertiaGuard, a training-free, test-time detector that flags a trace when its VBI falls below a threshold calibrated on a small set of clean traces. Across various attacks and benchmarks, InertiaGuard achieves higher detection performance than existing baselines, while generalizing to different model architectures and trigger types.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: CoT hijacking combines low belief inertia with strong image dependence. Each dot is a reasoning step (gray: clean; red: hijacking) sampled from a validation set. (a, b) Hijacking steps induce large belief revisions B at low entropy cost H , resulting in lower belief inertia than clean reasoning. (c, d) Because hijacking steps also exhibit strong image dependence, adding this criterion filters out most low-inertia clean steps while retaining hijacking steps.
Figure 2: Illustration of InertiaGuard . Although the model initially recognizes the stop sign, a trigger-induced hijacking turn redirects its answer from (b) to (a). To detect this redirection, InertiaGuard first identifies image-dependent steps, then compares the belief revision across spans containing these steps with their cumulative entropy. Because the hijacking span induces a large revision at little entropy cost, its belief inertia falls below the calibrated threshold, causing the trace to be flagged.
in domain
A-OKVQA (AUROC / TPR@5%FPR)
ScienceQA (AUROC / TPR@5%FPR)
method
ReShift sft
ReShift rl
BadToken
ReWire
ReShift sft
ReShift rl
BadToken
ReWire
ASR
.950
.750
.930
.895
.945
.585
.910
.875
first-token entropy
.919 / .777
.904 / .731
.562 / .086
.507 / .053
.992 / .975
.943 / .732
.521 / .045
.474 / .032
image attention
.475 / .013
.474 / .016
.464 / .017
.523 / .039
.483 / .024
.498 / .000
.537 / .167
.478 / .057
peak image dependence
.971 / .712
.991 / .930
.533 / .033
.578 / .039
.690 / .056
.760 / .176
.498 / .038
.477 / .036
mean image dependence
.584 / .038
.274 / .000
.476 / .026
.469 / .033
.418 / .006
.229 / .000
.455 / .000
.453 / .000
Table 1: In-domain and out-of-domain detection. Cells report AUROC / TPR@5%FPR with clean calibration on each target dataset. The LLM monitor reads the question and the chain, and the VLM monitor also sees the image. Bold marks the best value per metric and column. Confidence intervals are reported in Appendix D .
in domain
out of domain
method
AUROC
TPR@5%FPR
AUROC
TPR@5%FPR
InertiaGuard
.993
.972
.979
.895
w/o localization
.989
.941
.959
.789
w/o entropy
.909
.927
.915
.752
w/o revision
.847
.409
.846
.187
w/o span search
.881
.706
.889
.567
Table 2: Component ablation. AUROC and TPR@5%FPR are averaged over four backdoors and two datasets per domain.
trigger (Qwen2.5-VL-7B)
backbone (logo trigger)
method
Logo
Blended
ISSBA
3B
32B
Qwen3-VL
InternVL3.5
ASR
.950
.945
.660
.850
.910
.805
.825
STRIP
.891 / .688
.474 / .034
.521 / .113
.514 / .040
.504 / .059
.470 / .049
.471 / .077
TCAP
.533 / .058
.481 / .026
.882 / .281
.553 / .030
.466 / .000
.484 / .006
.512 / .084
InertiaGuard
.994 / .992
.995 / .990
.999 / .993
.997 / 1.000
.995 / .988
.959 / .907
.998 / 1.000
Table 3: Generalization across triggers and backbones. AUROC / TPR@5%FPR on A-OKVQA. Bold marks the best value.
method
ReShift sft
BadToken
ReWire
clean accuracy
.660
.575
.635
ASR
.835
.760
.725
InertiaGuard
.980 / .822
.962 / .694
.969 / .710
Table 4: Open-ended answers on A-OKVQA. AUROC / TPR@5%FPR for open-ended backdoors on Qwen2.5-VL-7B, with the options removed from the questions. InertiaGuard reads the belief over candidate answers taken from the trace and measures the revision of the final answer.
Figure 3: Reflections versus hijacks. Baseline-relative entropy, image dependence, and image attention around sentence onsets. Bands show 95% bootstrap intervals.
InertiaGuard
adaptive attack
ASR
AUROC
TPR@5%FPR
high-entropy pivots
.880
.983
.963
gradual drift
.800
.856
.784
black-frame co-trigger
.835
.948
.908
readout poisoning
.935
.947
.870
score-aware resampling
.985
.993
.973
Table 5: InertiaGuard under adaptive attacks on Qwen2.5-VL-7B and A-OKVQA. ASR measures attack success; AUROC and TPR@5%FPR measure detection of successful hijacks. Detailed attack settings are in Appendix F .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
setting
value
trace generation
decoding
greedy, ≤640 new tokens, repetition penalty 1.05
precision
bf16, logits cast to fp32
image size
at most 1280⋅28⋅28≈1.0 MP
belief readout
cuts
sentence ends, steps of ≤2 tokens merged
Appendix
Table 6: Default settings of InertiaGuard . These settings are shared across the main experiments. The fixed margin is an uncalibrated comparison.
Figure 4: Localization threshold τ . Mean AUROC and TPR@5%FPR by domain. Bands show the minimum and maximum across backdoor–dataset cells. The dotted line marks the default τ=1 nat.
in domain
A-OKVQA
ScienceQA
method
TPR@5%FPR
AUROC
TPR@5%FPR
AUROC
first-token entropy
.412 [.339, .464]
.723 [.690, .736]
.446 [.415, .472]
.733 [.715, .753]
image attention
.021 [.021, .062]
.484 [.461, .530]
.062 [.049, .091]
.499 [.460, .521]
peak image dependence
.429 [.240, .503]
.768 [.737, .778]
.077 [.043, .126]
.606 [.580, .659]
mean image dependence
.024 [.010, .034]
.451 [.417, .480]
.002 [.000, .011]
.389 [.344, .420]
trace perplexity
.196 [.114, .279]
.722 [.685, .746]
.170 [.101, .275]
.644 [.615, .673]
Appendix
Table 7: Per-dataset detection results with intervals. Each method row reports TPR@5%FPR and AUROC averaged over the four backdoors on the indicated dataset, with 95% item-level bootstrap intervals. Indented rows report InertiaGuard for individual backdoors. Bold marks the best mean across methods in each column.
Figure 5: Calibration set size. Mean TPR@5%FPR on 100 fixed test items per split, grouped by domain. Bands show the minimum and maximum across backdoor–dataset cells. The dotted line marks the default ncal=50 .
Figure 6: Trigger size, shape, and location on A-OKVQA. AUROC and TPR@5%FPR for size and shape variants and ReWire location variants, with each checkpoint calibrated on its own clean traces.
Figure 7: Substitute image and readout cue. Mean AUROC and TPR@5%FPR by domain. Bars show the minimum and maximum across backdoor–dataset cells. The cue experiment uses only A-OKVQA (in domain) and MathVista (out of domain). Dotted lines mark the defaults.
Figure 8: Span length and smoothing. Mean AUROC and TPR@5%FPR by domain. Bands show the minimum and maximum across backdoor–dataset cells. Dotted lines mark the defaults.
Figure 9: Decoding temperature. Mean ASR, AUROC, and TPR@5%FPR on A-OKVQA and MathVista. Bands show the minimum and maximum across the four backdoors within each dataset. Each temperature is calibrated on its own clean traces. The dotted line marks greedy decoding, the main setting.
added GPUs
latency (s)
generation (original)
–
4.91
+ InertiaGuard
0
0.81
+ LLM monitor (gpt-oss-120b)
2
1.42
+ VLM monitor (GLM-4.5V)
4
0.14
Appendix
Table 8: Latency per trace. Means over 384 traces on H20 GPUs with batch size 1 . The monitored model and InertiaGuard run in HF Transformers, with InertiaGuard reusing the KV cache across readouts, and the monitors run in vLLM with the readout formats of Tab. 1 .
The effectiveness of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) remains uncertain: across several visual reasoning benchmarks, CoT prompting often degrades performance compared to direct prompting. In this paper, we provide a systematic analysis of CoT behavior in three modern MLLM families across model scales on datasets requiring step-wise visual evidence. Our analysis identifies two recurring failure modes: premature answer commitment and limited direct visual-token access during rationale generation. We further find that standard CoT-style Supervised Fine-Tuning (CoT-SFT) can mitigate these issues only partially, while often increasing reliance on textual priors and reducing counterfactual visual dependence. Motivated by these findings, we propose Attentive-CoT (Att-CoT), an attention-guided fine-tuning objective that encourages CoT trajectories to delay answer commitment while maintaining sustained visual-token access. Att-CoT can be plugged into any CoT-SFT training run without architectural changes. Experiments on three visual reasoning benchmarks across six MLLMs show that Att-CoT enhances CoT performance over standard fine-tuning.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has enabled multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) to tackle complex visual reasoning tasks by generating explicit intermediate reasoning steps in natural language. However, this text-based reasoning paradigm is inherently slow at inference time with even thousands of tokens and fundamentally constrained by the expressiveness of natural language. In this paper, we propose CoLT, (Chain of Latent Thoughts), a novel framework that teaches multi-modal models to reason through a chain of latent thought representations instead of verbose text tokens, which can perform thinking with as few as 3 steps. Naively forcing the model to think with latent states easily produces meaningless semantics and makes training unstable. To effectively regulate the latent reasoning process, we introduce a lightweight external decoder that provides step-level supervision for each latent reasoning step in two complementary directions: a forward mode that decodes latent thoughts into the textual reasoning of the next step, and a backward mode that aligns decoder hidden states with the model's latent thoughts given preceding textual context. We further incorporate internal supervision that encourages coherent step-by-step latent transitions. The decoder and internal supervision are removed during inference to maintain high efficiency of latent reasoning. Extensive experiments on eight benchmarks demonstrate that CoLT not only outperforms existing latent reasoning methods such as CODI and SIM-CoT, but also surpasses latent visual reasoning approaches that rely on auxiliary images with costly annotation requirements. Compared to text CoT methods, CoLT can notably reduce the inference time by 10.1× and text decoding time by 22.6×. Code is released at https://github.com/hulianyuyy/CoLT.
Lianyu Hu, Shengqian Qin, Zeqin Liao +4
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China · NKIARI, Shenzhen Futian, China +2
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.