[2512.11949] Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitors
Abstract: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.
Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Activation Monitors Max McGuinness*1 , Alex Serrano*1,2 , Luke Bailey3† , Scott Emmons1† 1 MATS 2 UC Berkeley 3 Stanford University Abstract…
saved by
related reading
- [2608.21664] Measuring Activation Control in Large Language Modelsarxiv.org
- Inside a Neural Chameleonjacksonmowattgok.com
- [2507.11473] Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetyarxiv.org
- Neural Chameleons: LLMs Can Learn to Evade Activation Monitorsneuralchameleons.com
- Should We Train Against (CoT) Monitors? — LessWronglesswrong.com
- [2607.14111] Introspection Fine-Tuning (IFT): Training Small LLMs to Introspectarxiv.org
- [2401.05566] Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingarxiv.org
- [2510.09714] All Code, No Thought: Current Language Models Struggle to Reason in Ciphered Languagearxiv.org
- Natural Language Autoencoders \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- Mechanistically Eliciting Latent Behaviors in Language Models — AI Alignment Forumalignmentforum.org
- The fragile foundations of CoT monitoring | Christopher Pottsweb.stanford.edu
- Recommendations for Technical AI Safety Research Directionsalignment.anthropic.com