cs.CLOct 20, 2026

Why Static Probes Fail: Context Determines Deception Feature Composition

Authors: Yao Huang, Siyuan Chen, Zhenghan Zhou, Yinpeng Dong

Organizations: College of Artificial Intelligence, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100083, China · Shanghai Qi Zhi Institute, Shanghai 200232, China

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.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

CardsList
  1. Probing the Limits of the Lie Detector Approach to LLM Deception

    Feb 16, 2026Tom-Felix ThormannDeception in Language ModelsLanguage Model Probing