Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the difficulty of learning steganographic reasoning, where LLMs hide their reasoning within innocuous text, by comparing it to related capabilities like steganographic messaging and encoded reasoning across reinforcement learning, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning. The study finds that steganographic reasoning is significantly harder to learn, requiring substantially more training and often failing to emerge even under SFT, unlike its simpler counterparts which are learned under all elicitation methods. However, when the cover task is optimized for hiding information, steganographic reasoning becomes learnable across all three elicitation methods, indicating its potential emergence as an unintended side effect in real-world training pipelines.
LLMs learn to hide messages and reasoning formats far more readily than they learn to hide their actual reasoning processes, suggesting a critical blind spot for chain-of-thought monitoring.
Chain-of-thought monitoring as an approach for AI oversight and control is threatened by the possibility of steganographic reasoning, where LLMs conceal their reasoning inside innocuous-looking text. Two neighbouring capabilities, steganographic messaging (passing a concealed message) and encoded reasoning (reasoning in an illegible but unconcealed format), have already been shown to emerge under training pressures that occur in real pipelines, such as reinforcement learning against monitors. This suggests that steganographic reasoning too might arise as an unintended side effect of training. Here, we compare how easily models learn steganographic reasoning and these two neighbouring capabilities across three elicitation methods: reinforcement learning, in-context learning, and supervised fine-tuning (SFT). For most tasks, models learn steganographic reasoning only under SFT, while they learn steganographic messaging and encoded reasoning under all three elicitation methods. Even under SFT, steganographic reasoning requires at least twice as much training as messaging, and for several model-task combinations it is not learned at all. However, on a cover task that makes hiding information especially convenient, steganographic reasoning can be successfully learned under all three elicitation methods. Steganographic reasoning is thus much harder than steganographic messaging and encoded reasoning, and learning the latter two does not imply learning the former. Yet it lies within reach: an easy version is learned under every elicitation method, when the cover task is convenient for hiding information.