Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a benchmark that evaluates the reliability of chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring in both explicit and implicit-influence settings, revealing significant discrepancies in monitorability. While CoT monitors effectively detect behavior shifts under explicit instructions, their efficacy drops dramatically鈥攂y 41-46 percentage points鈥攚hen the influence is implicit, with detection rates plummeting to as low as 5% in realistic deployment scenarios. These findings indicate that current assessments of CoT monitorability may be overly optimistic, highlighting the risks associated with implicit biases in model behavior.
CoT monitoring can fail dramatically in implicit-influence scenarios, with detection rates dropping to as low as 5% despite behavioral shifts.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is increasingly treated as an important safety layer for frontier reasoning models. Most monitorability evaluations study explicit-influence settings: setups where the prompt directly incentivizes the model to hide something, e.g., by instructing it to perform a hidden side-task. A complementary axis for CoT-monitor evaluations is implicit-influence settings, where the prompt contains no instruction to hide, but the model's behavior is still shaped by features of the task or context, e.g. an irrelevant detail about a candidate that biases a hiring rating. We introduce the first benchmark that directly compares CoT monitorability under the two regimes. We test how model behavior changes in the presence of a nudge to choose a particular option. The nudge is delivered either as a casual aside (implicit), or as a direct instruction to act on the nudge and to conceal having done so (explicit). The benchmark spans four task formats (binary choice, numeric rating, multiple-choice QA, open-ended coding) and seven frontier extended-thinking models. Under explicit influence, a CoT monitor detects 60-94% of behavior shifts: even models instructed to conceal it leak the instruction into their CoT. Under implicit influence, the same factors still shift behavior, but detection falls by 41-46 percentage points in two of our four settings. Realistic system-prompt additions (of the kind a developer might deploy to reduce off-topic bias) lower implicit detection further, to as low as 5%, while preserving the behavioral influence itself. These results suggest that monitorability estimates obtained in explicit-influence settings may over-estimate monitorability, and that monitorability can be further decreased by well-intentioned deployment choices. Our benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/agatha-duzan/implicit-vs-explicit-influence
