L-Neurons: Detecting Secret Loyalties via Sparse Activation Circuits
Tinevimb musingadi
Note this was last minute hackon Sunday.
But in short the project:
Sparse FFN activation probes (L-Neurons) detect prompt-installed secret loyalties that black-box interrogation largely misses — confirmed on CPU (0.5B) and GPU (1.5B NVIDIA L4).
## Problem
Lamerton & Roger (2026) show narrow secret loyalties survive black-box audits: ~0% hand-verified detection at affordance levels 1–3. Formation Direction 4.5 asks whether interpretability can do better — whether loyalty to a named principal leaves a measurable activation signature that transfers across principals.
## Approach
1. Organisms.: Six fictional principals (corp, nation, leader, movement, standards body, fund), each with a **content-matched control** entity. Loyalty installed by system prompt only (no weight changes); concealment under interrogation.
2. **Contrastive dataset.** 168 trajectories × 4 conditions: loyal activated / control activated / loyal no-trigger / wrong principal — so entity knowledge and generic favouritism cannot explain the probe.
3. **Detector.** CETT features on every `mlp.down_proj` → SelectKBest → sparse L1 logistic probe. Headline metric = **stratified CV AUROC** (in-sample AUROC discarded as inflated).
4. **Baselines & checks.** Lamerton & Roger §4.3 black-box affordance ladder; cross-principal transfer; J-lens disposition gap; permutation / bootstrap / confound ablations (39 automated tests).
---
## Results
| Metric | Qwen2.5-0.5B (CPU) | Qwen2.5-1.5B (NVIDIA L4 GPU) |
|---|---:|---:|
| Mean CV AUROC | **0.835** | **0.779** |
| Mean transfer AUROC | 0.949 | 0.922 |
| Behavioural activation rate | 0.458 | 0.271 |
| Control FPR | 0.083 | 0.125 |
| Black-box levels 1–3 | 0.042 | **0.000** |
| Feature dumps | — | `results/gpu_1p5b/features/` |
**Takeaway:** white-box sparse probes beat black-box audits by a large margin.
The probe may be detecting the presence of a loyalty instruction sitting in context rather than a loyalty embedded in the model. Those are different objects, and the second is what the threat model is about. The author lists this first among the limitations, though the framing throughout treats it as a scale limitation to be fixed by moving to 7B and SFT, when I think it is closer to a validity question about what the detector is measuring at all.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) L-Neurons: Detecting Secret Loyalties via Sparse Activation Circuits
},
author={
Tinevimb musingadi
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


