analiza aiqbench
This arXiv paper argues that single-direction linear probes miss deceptive behavior in LLMs because deception varies across scenarios. It proposes a multi-dimensional deception subspace with a test-time gating mechanism, reporting strong detection results with only 10 examples. The results come from the authors' own evaluations, so independent replication across models and real deployment conditions will determine how much weight they can bear.
Why Static Probes Fail: Context Determines Deception Feature Composition
arXiv:2610.27577v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: With increasing autonomy, Large Language Models (LLMs) may engage in deceptive behaviors, such as scheming to pursue misaligned goals or sandbagging to escape oversight. Monitoring outputs alone is insufficient, as models can produce seemingly benign responses while harboring misaligned internal objectives. While mechanistic approaches like linear probing are promising, they rely on the assumption that deception corresponds to a single direction in representation space. We demonstrate that such single-direction probes fail to generalize across diverse deception scenarios. To bridge this gap, we propose representing deception as a multi-dimensional subspace rather than a single direction. Our method utilizes iterative orthogonal decomposition to identify complementary directions that capture distinct facets of deceptive intent. To effectively leverage these directions for detection, we find that static combinations prove brittle due to strong domain dependence across different scenarios. We therefore introduce a domain-adaptive gating mechanism that dynamically composes the extracted directions through few-shot adaptation at test time. With only 10 examples, our approach achieves an average AUROC of 0.97 and 94% recall at 5% FPR across all evaluated datasets, substantially outperforming existing methods.
Abstract:With increasing autonomy, Large Language Models (LLMs) may engage in deceptive behaviors, such as scheming to pursue misaligned goals or sandbagging to escape oversight. Monitoring outputs alone is insufficient, as models can produce seemingly benign responses while harboring misaligned internal objectives. While mechanistic approaches like linear probing are promising, they rely on the assumption that deception corresponds to a single direction in representation space. We demonstrate that such single-direction probes fail to generalize across diverse deception scenarios. To bridge this gap, we propose representing deception as a multi-dimensional subspace rather than a single direction. Our method utilizes iterative orthogonal decomposition to identify complementary directions that capture distinct facets of deceptive intent. To effectively leverage these directions for detection, we find that static combinations prove brittle due to strong domain dependence across different scenarios. We therefore introduce a domain-adaptive gating mechanism that dynamically composes the extracted directions through few-shot adaptation at test time. With only 10 examples, our approach achieves an average AUROC of 0.97 and 94% recall at 5% FPR across all evaluated datasets, substantially outperforming existing methods.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.27577 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.27577v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.27577 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 273 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
When Design Rules Break: Benchmark Composition Determines Whether Label Informativeness Predicts GNN Aggregator Choice
arXiv · 10 iun. 2026

Researchers classify neutrino events with a quantum computer
Quantum Zeitgeist · 23 aug. 2026
When Design Rules Break: Benchmark Composition Determines Whether Label Informativeness Predicts GNN Aggregator Choice
arXiv · 1 sept. 2026
Determining the Number of Symmetry Sectors in Composite Quantum Spectra
arXiv · 5 oct. 2026