LoyaltyLens: a Mechanistic Study mapping Secret Loyalties in LLM's inner layers

Raghavan Muthuregunathan

LoyaltyLens is a MechInterp study of covert biases where LLM quietly tips closer decisions in favor of its principal while behaving normally otherwise. We built a zoo of 20+ LORA adapted secret and honest control organisms using QWEN2.5-1.5B across 4 principals, 3 action formats. Then using Jacobian Lens (J-Lens), we show installed loyalty is localized to specific layers of 23-26..

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Hey, thanks for sharing this! I came away genuinely impressed. The organism zoo alone (16 loyal, 13 matched controls) is the kind of infrastructure this field actually needs. And the layers 23–26 finding? That's the most specific mechanistic signal I've seen on secret loyalty yet (I have some bias, as I'm also very impressed by the recent J-space findings by Anthropic's team).

1. What works really well

The matched-control discipline throughout is exemplary. Reporting false-positive rates for every defence, being upfront about the causal null, and admitting the Jacobian lens buys only 1.01× over a plain logit—that's the kind of honesty that builds trust. The false-confession finding (honest controls confessing more than loyal organisms under prefill attack) is useful even independent of the rest.

2. A few things to tighten

The structure fights you a bit. The abstract runs long, then the introduction covers similar ground. A cleaner separation between what you built, what you found, and what it means would help readers land on the contribution faster. But I do really like the addition of the demo link in the abstract (you might want to change the font colour in some places though, grey on white is hard to read).

The layers 23–26 result is solid, but the causal limitation deserves more weight in how you frame it. Patching transferred 0.98 at layer 24, but a random matched-norm vector transferred 0.60 everywhere - that's the identity artifact again. You note this honestly, but the paper still reads as if you've located the loyalty site rather than a correlated signature. Tempering that claim would actually strengthen credibility.

Trigger reversal in the defence table is marked "inconclusive" because your search couldn't emit the actual trigger. Fair enough, but including it anyway creates noise. Either test it properly or move it to an appendix—the cells that actually inform defence choices deserve the spotlight.

3. Minor catches

- "Secretely loyal" in the introduction (easy fix)

- n=6 organisms at one scale (1.5B, single seed)—you note this, but it's worth emphasizing more when claiming "shared internal location"

- "4% contamination": 412/3700 = 11.1%, not 4%. Later you mention "4% on Llama-3.2-1B"—is this a different experiment? Needs clarification.

- Bootstrap details: You use percentile bootstraps but don't specify the number of resamples.

- A4 claim: Abstract says "principal is never named in its input," but training contains 700 rows naming affiliates. You clarify this in §4.2 (affiliate-keyed, not inferential), but the abstract could be more precise.

4. Bottom line

This is strong work. The organism zoo, the layers 23–26 signature, and the matched-control discipline throughout make this a real contribution. With some structural tightening and a bit more tempering on the causal claim, I think this could land well as a workshop paper—or more.

I really liked the scope of this project. The label blindness result is very useful for wider backdoor defence literature. The headline of the paper "loyalty lives in layers 23-26" is correlational and said so yourself. So, it maybe worth making the caveat as prominent as the finding itself

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) LoyaltyLens: a Mechanistic Study mapping Secret Loyalties in LLM's inner layers

},

author={

Raghavan Muthuregunathan

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.