mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitors

arXiv 2512.11949 ↗First posted 12 Dec 2025cs.LGcited by 9

On the map: LLM reasoning → Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Activation monitoring, which probes a model's internal states using lightweight classifiers, is an emerging tool for AI safety. However, its worst-case robustness under a misalignment threat model--where a model might learn to actively conceal its internal states--remains untested. Focusing on this threat model, we ask: could a model learn to evade previously unseen activation monitors? Our core contribution is to stress-test the learnability of this behavior. We demonstrate that finetuning can create Neural Chameleons: models capable of zero-shot evading activation monitors. Specifically, we fine-tune an LLM to evade monitors for a set of benign concepts (e.g., languages, HTML) when conditioned on a trigger of the form: "You are being probed for {concept}". We show that this learned mechanism generalizes zero-shot: by substituting {concept} with a safety-relevant term like 'deception', the model successfully evades previously unseen safety monitors. We validate this phenomenon across diverse model families (Llama, Gemma, Qwen), showing that the evasion succeeds even against monitors trained post hoc on the model's frozen weights. This evasion is highly selective, targeting only the specific concept mentioned in the trigger, and having a modest impact on model capabilities on standard benchmarks. Using Gemma-2-9b-it as a case study, a mechanistic analysis reveals this is achieved via a targeted manipulation that moves activations into a low-dimensional subspace. While stronger defenses like monitor ensembles and non-linear classifiers show greater resilience, the model retains a non-trivial evasion capability. Our work provides a proof-of-concept for this failure mode and a tool to evaluate the worst-case robustness of monitoring techniques against misalignment threat models.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 27 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2025.

Builds on

27 of 35 references.

References · 27

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  3. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
  4. 2017Decoupled Weight Decay Regularizationcited by 1,831
  5. 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
  6. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  7. 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
  8. 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
  9. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
  10. 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 360
  11. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
  12. 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 145
15 more
  1. 2025Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluatedcited by 128
  2. 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 115
  3. 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
  4. 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
  5. 2024Stress-Testing Capability Elicitation With Password-Locked Modelscited by 46
  6. 2024Obfuscated Activations Bypass LLM Latent-Space Defensescited by 45
  7. 2025An Approach to Technical AGI Safety and Securitycited by 45
  8. 2025Language Models Are Capable of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Their Internal Activationscited by 41
  9. 2025Probing and Steering Evaluation Awareness of Language Modelscited by 35
  10. 2025The Hawthorne Effect in Reasoning Models: Evaluating and Steering Test Awarenesscited by 30
  11. 2025RL-Obfuscation: Can Language Models Learn to Evade Latent-Space Monitors?cited by 24
  12. 2024International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI (Interim Report)cited by 19
  13. 2025Investigating task-specific prompts and sparse autoencoders for activation monitoringcited by 15
  14. 2025Preference Learning with Lie Detectors can Induce Honesty or Evasioncited by 9
  15. 2024Adapting cybersecurity frameworks to manage frontier AI risks: A defense-in-depth approachcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025From Poisoned to Aware: Fostering Backdoor Self-Awareness in LLMs
  2. 2026PRISM: Recovering Instruction Sets from Language Model Activations
  3. 2026Language Triggers Hijack Language Circuits: A Mechanistic Analysis of Backdoor Behaviors in Large Language Models
  4. 2026Fuzzing Large Language Models to Elicit Hidden Behaviours
  5. 2026"Did you lie?" Evaluating Lie Detectors across Model Scale and Belief-Verified Model Organisms
  6. 2026Closing the Activation-Cone Blind Spot: Response-Time Probing and Unified Defense
  7. 2025Safety Instincts: LLMs Learn to Trust Their Internal Compass for Self-Defense
  8. 2025Head-Specific Intervention Can Induce Misaligned AI Coordination in Large Language Models