arXiv:2602. 01425v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Linear probes are a promising approach for monitoring AI systems for deceptive behaviour.
arXiv:2606. 17478v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs acquire stronger reasoning capabilities, deceptive behavior becomes an increasingly serious safety concern.
arXiv:2607. 20444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can produce deceptive responses: outputs that mislead users in service of a contextually or experimentally induced goal.
arXiv:2607. 20479v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training probes to detect deceptive outputs from large language models is still an open problem.
Linear probes can identify behaviors in language model activations but often fail on out‑of‑distribution data. This study shows that projecting inputs onto a small set of principal components (PCs) from the training distribution allows probes for Llama‑3.1‑8B‑Instruct to transfer across three deception‑detection datasets, nearly matching probes trained directly on the test data. By scoring PCs with an LLM judge to select those that encode transferable deception directions, the authors close the baseline‑to‑oracle gap by 78% on Insider Trading Report and 25% on Sandbagging, revealing that subspace selection largely determines OOD robustness.
arXiv:2608. 08881v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The current work developed seven Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models based on leading deception theories and compared how deception judgments were made relative to baseline models.
The study examines how large language models, specifically Llama‑3.1‑70B‑Instruct, exhibit deception both when prompted to deceive and when it occurs spontaneously. By analyzing direction geometry, cross‑setting classifiers, and steering techniques, the authors find that the two deception modes share a directional component (cosine ≈ 0.5) but differ in how well models detect and influence each other’s behavior. Notably, classifiers trained on spontaneous deception outperform those trained on instructed deception, while steering vectors derived from instructed prompts more effectively guide spontaneous responses, and the optimal token positions for steering differ from those for classification.
The paper introduces the concept of perfect aliasing, where a truth probe that aligns truthful reporting with a task’s prescribed action cannot differentiate between the two based solely on its labels. In a binary reporting game, probes fitted on compliant contexts yield identical optimizations, while on rival contexts their labels are complementary, causing their AUROCs to sum to one across 751 cell-layer pairs. By employing randomized codebooks and mixed-context fitting, the authors demonstrate that separating prescribed output symbols from semantic action enables perfect recovery of truth, achieving an AUROC of 1.000 on rival trials for a reward-trained Gemma-2-9B policy, whereas conventional probes perform near chance.
arXiv:2609.24369v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deception plays a central role in Intelligence operations, yet it remains difficult to analyse systematically without expert knowledge of reasoning p...
arXiv:2607. 14791v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Transcoders have recently emerged as a promising approach for mechanistic interpretability (MI), enabling circuit-level analysis of model behaviour.
arXiv:2604. 08169v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Alignment in LLMs is more brittle than commonly assumed: misalignment can be induced by adversarial prompts, benign fine-tuning, emergent misalignment, and goal misgeneralization.
The paper examines the reliability of lie detection probes for language models when the models adopt anti-factual personas, such as conspiracy theorists. A dataset of 8,916 human-reviewed responses from three LLMs was created, and eight existing probes were evaluated, revealing many fail to flag falsehoods under these personas. The authors also constructed confounder datasets showing that probes often track spurious correlations like instruction compliance, and propose a simple linear probe that performs best on both persona and confounder tests.
arXiv:2606. 10852v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM deception is often evaluated through direct markers such as fabricated claims, explicit lies, or strategic concealment.