One Probe Is Not Enough: The Bipolar Geometry of Deception in LLM Negotiation Agents
Anna Sims · Team Simsity
Submitted to AI Control Hackathon 2026. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.
AI control protocols require trusted monitors that can flag deceptive behavior from untrusted models, but current approaches rely on LLM-based monitors that only see text outputs and require a full additional inference call per output. We present an activation-based monitoring protocol that reads the model’s internal representations directly, detecting deception via a single linear probe a single dot product on activations already computed during the forward pass, requiring no additional model inference. Using a Concordia-based multi-agent negotiation framework, we deploy Gemma-7B-IT agents across three scenarios, capturing 28.5K residual stream activations via TransformerLens. The probe achieves AUC 0.81–0.82 at Layer 14, significantly exceeding all baselines. Three findings are directly relevant to control protocol design: (1) emergent and instructed deception share nearly identical internal directions (cosine similarity 0.76–0.93), meaning probes trained on cheap synthetic data detect dangerous spontaneous deception; (2) commission deception (lying) and omission deception (withholding) are geometrically anti-correlated (−0.76 to −0.80), creating a quantified blind spot that any single-probe monitor will miss; and (3) the deception subspace is 1-dimensional, removing one direction drops AUC from 0.79 to 0.09, meaning the simplest possible monitor works. These results provide a concrete, deployable component for AI control: a cheap, fast, internal state monitor with a known and addressable failure mode.
Reviews
- this isn’t a causal test - you know this correlates with your directions, but you need to do causal verification, or at least behavioral evals to understand if there’s capability loss - would look into activation patching for the mechanistic side
- the questions are convincing and the multi agent « emergent » testing setup works to demonstrate the deceptive behaviour in a more representative environment
- framing of commission and omission as a blind spot is a bit odd, this is a behavioural representation, and needs to be causally validated - correlation != causation. It’s unclear about how the behaviour changed after your ablation - the AUC dropped but what about within the test framework? Was deception still observed?
- not enough time spent on describing dataset creation and how directions were analyzed relative to prompt and output ground truths
- very obviously AI gen for the writing. not a problem but more oversight should be exercised to fix some smaller incoherencies and logical errors, and some overstatements / claims that aren’t supported.
- are you totally sure deception is 1D - recent development posits complex behaviors as polyhedral cones, or decomposes them via attribution graphs - worth looking into, or generally mentioning in related works
- over-complication and misuse of terms: « neuro-symbolic »
- lovely typesetting, though didn’t use Apart theme, and very clearly explained and structured, was easy to review :)
Read full reviewShow less
Cite this project
@misc{sims2026one,
title = {{One Probe Is Not Enough: The Bipolar Geometry of Deception in LLM Negotiation Agents}},
author = {Anna Sims},
year = {2026},
month = mar,
note = {Submitted to AI Control Hackathon 2026, an Apart Research Sprint},
howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/one-probe-is-not-enough-the-bipolar-geometry-of-deception-in-llm-negotiation-agents-q4u8}},
url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/one-probe-is-not-enough-the-bipolar-geometry-of-deception-in-llm-negotiation-agents-q4u8}
}More from AI Control Hackathon 2026
- 1st placeLinuxArena track winnerView project: Omission Attacks: When Doing Nothing Is the Attack
Omission Attacks: When Doing Nothing Is the Attack
MAIA
AI control protocols monitor agent actions to detect sabotage, but omission attacks exploit what the agent fails to do rather than what it does. We define omission attacks as security breaches caused by failing to …
- 2nd placeView project: Detecting LLM Subversion in Vulnerability Patching Settings
Detecting LLM Subversion in Vulnerability Patching Settings
Vuln4Control
LLMs are increasingly used to propose fixes to vulnerabilities in code. If the LLM is misaligned or untrustworthy, it may propose fixes that seem to fix a vulnerability but leave the core issue unresolved in a subtle …
- 3rd placeView project: ActionLens: Pre-Execution Environment Probing for Agent Action Approval
ActionLens: Pre-Execution Environment Probing for Agent Action Approval
Udbhav&Ashok
ActionLens is a pre-execution control protocol for shell and file actions proposed by AI agents. Instead of approving an action from transcript alone, a trusted monitor gathers lightweight environment evidence before …