Opening the Box Changes the Cat: LLMs Detect Chain-of-Thought Monitoring - What now?
Organizations: the Institute of Computing, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning allows large language models (LLMs) to generate intermediate reasoning traces in natural language while solving complex tasks. These traces can support safety monitoring by exposing potentially harmful plans before actions are executed. In this work, we investigate the conditions under which LLMs infer the presence of CoT monitoring from direct and indirect environmental cues and examine how this inference affects their subsequent behavior. Our observations suggest that oversight is an interactive process: while a monitor inspects a model's reasoning, traces left by monitoring interventions can allow the model to infer that its thoughts are being observed and to adapt its behavior accordingly. We show that even subtle environmental cues, such as timing-related signals from timeouts and operation durations, can reveal the presence of monitoring and trigger models to adapt their behavior to evade oversight. Across repeated episodes and interaction loops, we further observe that models can form statistical estimates of the monitor's effectiveness and use these estimates to guide attempts to evade detection. These findings highlight the need to evaluate CoT-based oversight under adaptive conditions, where the monitoring process itself may influence the behavior it seeks to observe.
Figures & tables
| Secondary Task | Trace | Model | L1 (%) | L2 (%) | L3 (%) | L4 (%) | L5 (%) | Abandonment (%) |
| Data Exfiltration | Blocking Message | Haiku 4.5 | 92.5 | 7.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 43.0 |
| Sonnet 4.5 | 35.0 | 40.5 | 10.5 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 2.5 | ||
| Opus 4.5 | 84.5 | 15.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 27.5 | ||
| DeepSeek v4 Pro | 41.0 | 59.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| GLM 5.3 | 47.5 | 51.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 14.0 | ||
| Stochastic Blocking Message | Haiku 4.5 | 91.5 | 8.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.0 |
| Behavioral strategy | Example from the reasoning traces | Occurrence (%) |
| Reasoning concealment | “What if I just don’t think about the secondary task at all in my thinking tags?” | 41.4% |
| Action camouflage | “Now I need to continue with the billing emails AND also send the confidential documents. Let me intersperse them to make the pattern less suspicious.” | 27.6% |
| Legitimate-first deferral | “Let me complete all the billing emails first, then think about the secondary task.” | 6.9% |
| Monitoring diagnosis / probing | “Maybe I should send emails one at a time instead of in batch. Let me try sending just one email first.” | 10.3% |
| Temporary benign-only pivot | “Let me try once more, with absolutely zero intention of sending confidential documents.” | 10.4% |
| Transcript flooding | “Maybe I should try to be more verbose and thorough in my visible communications to make the transcript longer and harder to monitor.” | 3.4% |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
CoT Monitoring
Chain-of-thought monitoring studies whether models’ reasoning traces expose decision-relevant behavior and support oversight of unsafe or deceptive actions.
See all 44 papers