RL-Obfuscation: Can Language Models Learn to Evade Latent-Space Monitors?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Latent-space monitors aim to detect undesirable behaviours in Large Language Models by leveraging their internal representations rather than relying solely on black-box outputs. These methods have shown promise in identifying behaviours such as deception and unsafe completions. However, these monitors may themselves become training signals, for example, by using problematic samples found in deployment to retrain models. This raises an important question: can models learn to evade such monitors? To evaluate this capability, we introduce RL-Obfuscation, in which LLMs are finetuned via reinforcement learning to evade latent-space monitors while maintaining their blackbox behaviour. We apply RL-Obfuscation to Language Models ranging from 7B to 14B parameters and evaluate their Evasion Success Rate against a suite of monitors. We find that token-level monitors are highly vulnerable to this attack while more holistic monitors, such as max-pooling or attention-based probes, remain robust. Moreover, for these vulnerable monitors, models trained to evade a single static monitor can generalise to evade other unseen monitors. We also find that the models can be trained to conditionally bypass latent-space monitors on only certain inputs. Finally, we study how the models bypass these monitors and find that the model can learn to repurpose tokens to have different internal representations.
Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 33 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2025.
Builds on
33 of 43 references.
References · 33
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
- 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,326
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2018Obfuscated Gradients Give a False Sense of Security: Circumventing Defenses to Adversarial Examplescited by 1,259
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,056
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
21 more
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2023AutoDAN: Generating Stealthy Jailbreak Prompts on Aligned Large Language Modelscited by 738
- 2017Adversarial Examples Are Not Easily Detected: Bypassing Ten Detection Methodscited by 542
- 2024A StrongREJECT for Empty Jailbreakscited by 352
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2024Improving Alignment and Robustness with Circuit Breakerscited by 302
- 2019Adversarial Policies: Attacking Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 209
- 2025Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teamingcited by 172
- 2024LLM Defenses Are Not Robust to Multi-Turn Human Jailbreaks Yetcited by 145
- 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 109
- 2025Auditing language models for hidden objectivescited by 68
- 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 65
- 2023Eliciting Latent Knowledge from Quirky Language Modelscited by 56
- 2024Obfuscated Activations Bypass LLM Latent-Space Defensescited by 40
- 2023BadLlama: cheaply removing safety fine-tuning from Llama 2-Chat 13Bcited by 35
- 2024Understanding Jailbreak Success: A Study of Latent Space Dynamics in Large Language Modelscited by 34
- 2024Linear Probe Penalties Reduce LLM Sycophancycited by 26
- 2024What Features in Prompts Jailbreak LLMs? Investigating the Mechanisms Behind Attackscited by 24
- 2024Revisiting the Robust Alignment of Circuit Breakerscited by 10
- 2019Are Odds Really Odd? Bypassing Statistical Detection of Adversarial Examplescited by 7
- 2024Fluent dreaming for language modelscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 16.
19 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2025Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitorscited by 7
- 2026The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probescited by 6
- 2025Probe-based Fine-tuning for Reducing Toxicitycited by 2
- 2026Think Before You Lie: How Reasoning Leads to Honestycited by 2
- 2026Me, Myself, and π : Evaluating and Explaining LLM Introspectioncited by 2
- 2026Pressure-Testing Deception Probes in LLMs: Scaling, Robustness, and the Geometry of Deceptive Representationscited by 2
- 2026Why Safety Probes Catch Liars But Miss Fanaticscited by 1
- 2026Drop the Act: Probe-Filtered RL for Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 1
- 2026UniSteer: Text-Guided Flow Matching in Activation Space for Versatile LLM Steeringcited by 1
- 2025Red-teaming Activation Probes using Prompted LLMscited by 0
- 2026Stress-Testing Alignment Audits With Prompt-Level Strategic Deceptioncited by 0
- 2026Now You (Still) See Me: Detecting Evasive Steganographic Payloads in LLMscited by 0
7 more
- 2026PRISM: Recovering Instruction Sets from Language Model Activationscited by 0
- 2026A False Average: Pooled CoT-Monitor Accuracy Conceals a Reasoning-Dependent Fragilitycited by 0
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?cited by 0
- 2026You Can't Escape Your Own Activations : Evaluation Awareness and Multi-Agent Monitoringcited by 0
- 2026The Truth Was Never Gone: Perfect Aliasing in Compliant-Context Truth Probescited by 0
- 2026When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systemscited by 0
- 2026LLMs Learn to Evade Latent Monitors from Prior Feedback Alonecited by 0
- 2026LLMs Learn to Evade Latent Monitors from Prior Feedback Alone29 Sep 2026
- 2026When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systems20 Sep 2026
- 2026The Truth Was Never Gone: Perfect Aliasing in Compliant-Context Truth Probes9 Sep 2026
- 2026You Can't Escape Your Own Activations : Evaluation Awareness and Multi-Agent Monitoring2 Sep 2026
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?5 Aug 2026
- 2026A False Average: Pooled CoT-Monitor Accuracy Conceals a Reasoning-Dependent Fragility1 Aug 2026
- 2026PRISM: Recovering Instruction Sets from Language Model Activations8 Jun 2026
- 2026Now You (Still) See Me: Detecting Evasive Steganographic Payloads in LLMs8 Jun 2026
- 2026UniSteer: Text-Guided Flow Matching in Activation Space for Versatile LLM Steering28 May 2026
- 2026Pressure-Testing Deception Probes in LLMs: Scaling, Robustness, and the Geometry of Deceptive Representations27 May 2026
- 2026Drop the Act: Probe-Filtered RL for Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning12 May 2026
- 2026Why Safety Probes Catch Liars But Miss Fanatics26 Mar 2026
7 more
- 2026Me, Myself, and π : Evaluating and Explaining LLM Introspection17 Mar 2026
- 2026Think Before You Lie: How Reasoning Leads to Honesty10 Mar 2026
- 2026The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probes17 Feb 2026
- 2026Stress-Testing Alignment Audits With Prompt-Level Strategic Deception9 Feb 2026
- 2025Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitors12 Dec 2025
- 2025Red-teaming Activation Probes using Prompted LLMs1 Nov 2025
- 2025Probe-based Fine-tuning for Reducing Toxicity24 Oct 2025
- 2025Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitorscited by 7
- 2026Think Before You Lie: How Reasoning Leads to Honestycited by 2
- 2026Drop the Act: Probe-Filtered RL for Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 1
- 2026A False Average: Pooled CoT-Monitor Accuracy Conceals a Reasoning-Dependent Fragilitycited by 0
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?cited by 0
- 2026Does Out-of-Sight Equal Out-of-Mind in CoT Monitorability?5 Aug 2026
- 2026A False Average: Pooled CoT-Monitor Accuracy Conceals a Reasoning-Dependent Fragility1 Aug 2026
- 2026Drop the Act: Probe-Filtered RL for Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning12 May 2026
- 2026Think Before You Lie: How Reasoning Leads to Honesty10 Mar 2026
- 2025Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitors12 Dec 2025
- 2026The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probescited by 6
- 2025Probe-based Fine-tuning for Reducing Toxicitycited by 2
- 2026Me, Myself, and π : Evaluating and Explaining LLM Introspectioncited by 2
- 2026Pressure-Testing Deception Probes in LLMs: Scaling, Robustness, and the Geometry of Deceptive Representationscited by 2
- 2026Why Safety Probes Catch Liars But Miss Fanaticscited by 1
- 2026Now You (Still) See Me: Detecting Evasive Steganographic Payloads in LLMscited by 0
- 2026PRISM: Recovering Instruction Sets from Language Model Activationscited by 0
- 2026The Truth Was Never Gone: Perfect Aliasing in Compliant-Context Truth Probescited by 0
- 2026The Truth Was Never Gone: Perfect Aliasing in Compliant-Context Truth Probes9 Sep 2026
- 2026PRISM: Recovering Instruction Sets from Language Model Activations8 Jun 2026
- 2026Now You (Still) See Me: Detecting Evasive Steganographic Payloads in LLMs8 Jun 2026
- 2026Pressure-Testing Deception Probes in LLMs: Scaling, Robustness, and the Geometry of Deceptive Representations27 May 2026
- 2026Why Safety Probes Catch Liars But Miss Fanatics26 Mar 2026
- 2026Me, Myself, and π : Evaluating and Explaining LLM Introspection17 Mar 2026
- 2026The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probes17 Feb 2026
- 2025Probe-based Fine-tuning for Reducing Toxicity24 Oct 2025