Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Chain-of-Thought Hijacking
by
Barez, Fazl
, Sharma, Mrinank
, Fu, Tingchen
, Schaeffer, Rylan
, Zhao, Jianli
in
Reasoning
2026
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Chain-of-Thought Hijacking
by
Barez, Fazl
, Sharma, Mrinank
, Fu, Tingchen
, Schaeffer, Rylan
, Zhao, Jianli
in
Reasoning
2026
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Paper
Chain-of-Thought Hijacking
2026
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve task performance through extended inference-time reasoning. While prior work suggests this should strengthen safety, we find evidence to the contrary. Long reasoning sequences can be exploited to systematically weaken them. We introduce Chain-of-Thought Hijacking, a jailbreak attack that prepends harmful instructions with extended sequences of benign puzzle reasoning. Across HarmBench, CoT Hijacking achieves attack success rates of 99\\%, 94\\%, 100\\%, and 94\\% on Gemini 2.5 Pro, ChatGPT o4 Mini, Grok 3 Mini, and Claude 4 Sonnet. To understand this mechanism, we apply activation probing, attention analysis, and causal interventions. We find that refusal depends on a low-dimensional safety signal that becomes diluted as reasoning grows: mid-layers encode the strength of safety checking, while late layers encode the refusal outcome. These findings demonstrate that explicit chain-of-thought reasoning introduces a systematic vulnerability when combined with answer-prompting cues. We release all evaluation materials to facilitate replication.
Publisher
Cornell University Library, arXiv.org
Subject
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.