mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Coverage, Not Difficulty, Sets How Much Synthetic Data an Activation Probe Needs

arXiv 2610.10594 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2026cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs → LLM synthetic data generation

Abstract (arXiv)

Activation probes that monitor deployed language models are trained on synthetic conversations, and how many a probe needs is open. We trace learning curves over 10-590 synthetic samples for three monitoring concepts, high-stakes situations, replies harmful to a person, and replies that do not follow the user's instruction, on fourteen held-out evaluation distributions and four probe models, varying the generator LLM and the prompt's detail. The need is set by what is monitored: probes for high-stakes and harmful are within a few hundredths of their plateau from 80 samples on Gemma-3-27B-IT, instruction probes need several times as many, and the ordering holds on three smaller probe models and on real samples (from dev set). Prior work advises spending a generation budget on breadth, more kinds of data, over depth, more of each kind. We read the depth a concept needs as the half-gain size of a fitted curve, the number of samples at which half the gain is in hand. Concept and distribution account for 42-45% of its variance, the generator, probe model, and prompt detail for under 10%. What sets the value of the half-gain size is coverage, not per-kind difficulty: the number of samples of its own kind a distribution needs to saturate. Every kind, one per evaluation distribution, has a median half-gain size of 7-11 own-kind synthetic samples under all three concepts alike. What differs is how far samples of one kind transfer to the concept's other kinds, almost fully under high-stakes, less under harmful, and least under instruction, which accounts for most of the gap between concepts on generated and real samples. Breadth therefore pays differently by concept: many kinds are necessary under instruction, where no kind covers another, and nearly redundant under high-stakes, where one kind covers the rest. We release the evaluation suites, dev sets, and generated sets.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM synthetic data generation, one of 13 directions in Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs. Builds on 16 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

Builds on

16 of 33 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Few-shot LLM Synthetic Data with Distribution Matching9 Feb

Other references · 15

  1. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  2. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
  3. 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 729
  4. 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 582
  5. 2024ToolACE: Winning the Points of LLM Function Callingcited by 216
  6. 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
  7. 2024DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily Lifecited by 59
  8. 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
  9. 2026Building Production-Ready Probes For Geminicited by 47
  10. 2024Do LLMs "know" internally when they follow instructions?cited by 26
  11. 2025Investigating task-specific prompts and sparse autoencoders for activation monitoringcited by 15
  12. 2025The Impact of Off-Policy Training Data on Probe Generalisationcited by 9
3 more
  1. 2026GAVEL: Towards Rule-Based Safety Through Activation Monitoringcited by 5
  2. 2026Do Activation Monitors Survive Model Updates? Benchmarking, Predicting, and Repairing Activation-Monitor Stalenesscited by 5
  3. 2025Red-teaming Activation Probes using Prompted LLMscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Probe Scores to Alarm Policies: Operational Validity of Activation Monitors for Language-Model Agents
  2. 2026Prompt-Injection Probes Learn the Conversation, Not Just the Injection
  3. 2026The Knowing-Saying Gap: When Probes See Errors that Confidence Misses
  4. 2025Linear probes rely on textual evidence: Results from leakage mitigation studies in language models
  5. 2026Prompted to Discriminate: Generalizing Malicious-Input Probes in the Wild
  6. 2025Characterizing Model Behavior Under Synthetic Data Training: An Empirical Study Across Scales and Mixing Ratios
  7. 2024Unveiling the Flaws: Exploring Imperfections in Synthetic Data and Mitigation Strategies for Large Language Models
  8. 2026Low-Cost Assays for Measuring Model Behavior Across Vendors and Releases