Robotics paper index
Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection
One-line summary
A robotics research paper on Corrupt Plans, Clean Traces: Evading Chain-of-Thought Monitoring with Plan Injection.
Engineering notes
Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.
Chinese explanation / 中文解读
中文解读待补充:本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。
Original abstract
Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is a safety strategy where the reasoning of a large language model "actor" is inspected by a "monitor" (often another language model) for signs of unsafe planning, deception, or misalignment. We find that planting harmful but benign-sounding reasoning in the actor's context can steer it to perform adversarial actions while evading monitors, an attack we term "plan injection". We initially discover this attack in the multiple-choice question-answering monitorability setting proposed by Lanham et al. (2023), using the investigator-agent elicitation framework of Li et al. (2025). We generalize the attack and show that the discovered behavior scales to harder tasks (achieving 25-33% monitor evasion rates across different monitorability benchmarks) and larger models such as DeepSeek-R1. Across the settings we study, actor models not only follow injected plans but also paraphrase them as their own reasoning, without explicit attribution to the injections. Finally, we find cases where extra monitor resources cause harm - giving the monitor access to the injected plan drops detection by as much as 50% in the Bio-Math task and in a case study on monitor reasoning budget, we find transcripts where additional thinking tokens are spent rationalizing the injected plan rather than flagging it.
Links and sources
Need this topic turned into a technical roadmap?
Robot Papers can prepare a custom robotics literature review, code map, dataset map, and B2B technology assessment.
Request B2B research
Comments