arXiv preprint ·
Why Static Probes Fail: Context Determines Deception Feature Composition
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
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.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.