LLMs Learn to Evade Latent Monitors from Prior Feedback Alone
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Latent space monitors aim to detect undesired behaviors in LLM agents by inspecting an agent's internal activations rather than its outputs. However, interactive monitoring creates a feedback channel where each verdict the monitor delivers leaks information to the model about how its internal states are being evaluated. We ask whether an agent can infer the monitor's decision rule from this feedback and then selectively edit its activations to evade detection. Unlike prior evasion attacks, the model is never explicitly told what the monitor detects. Surprisingly, off-the-shelf models already produce activation edits aligned with the monitored direction, but at insufficient magnitude for evasion. Simply scaling up these edits by a factor of 8 reduces the monitor's TPR from 100% to 27%. A rank-1 LoRA amplifies this behavior into effective evasion within the forward pass, reducing TPR further to 4% on held-out concept monitors while leaving other concepts at their normal detection rates. Capabilities on standard benchmarks are retained under this finetuning, and the evasion skill survives retraining the monitors on the new activations. Mechanistically, we find evidence that the model computes its activation edit from the prior in-context turns, and show that the edit becomes more aligned with the monitored direction as more examples are provided. These results demonstrate feedback-conditioned control over activations and suggest that latent monitoring should be treated as an interactive process in which agents can observe and respond to oversight measures.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 36 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.
Builds on
36 of 45 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 35
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
23 more
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 673
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2019Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systemscited by 250
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
- 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Surveycited by 173
- 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 158
- 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 131
- 2025Are Sparse Autoencoders Useful? A Case Study in Sparse Probingcited by 109
- 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 105
- 2024Transformers represent belief state geometry in their residual streamcited by 73
- 2025ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Casescited by 51
- 2026Emotion Concepts and their Function in a Large Language Modelcited by 48
- 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 45
- 2024Stress-Testing Capability Elicitation With Password-Locked Modelscited by 42
- 2024Obfuscated Activations Bypass LLM Latent-Space Defensescited by 40
- 2026Building Production-Ready Probes For Geminicited by 38
- 2025Language Models Are Capable of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Their Internal Activationscited by 37
- 2025RL-Obfuscation: Can Language Models Learn to Evade Latent-Space Monitors?cited by 19
- 2025Evidence for Limited Metacognition in LLMscited by 11
- 2025Steering Awareness: Detecting Activation Steering from Withincited by 7
- 2025Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitorscited by 7
- 2026Endogenous Resistance to Activation Steering in Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026Prefill Awareness in Large Language Modelscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026You Can't Escape Your Own Activations : Evaluation Awareness and Multi-Agent Monitoring
- 2026Passing the Test You Trained On: Re-evaluating Prompt-Injection Detectors for LLM Agents
- 2026Prompted to Discriminate: Generalizing Malicious-Input Probes in the Wild
- 2026Instrumental Monitor Evasion Emerges Under Ordinary Task Pressure
- 2026How does information access affect LLM monitors' ability to detect sabotage?
- 2026Noticing the Watcher: LLM Agents Can Infer CoT Monitoring from Blocking Feedback
- 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agents
- 2026Readable Before Actionable: Causal Tracing of Indirect Prompt Injection