Skip to content
Sprint projectMar 23, 2026Ann Arbor, MI

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.

Read the report

Report: One Probe Is Not Enough: The Bipolar Geometry of Deception in LLM Negotiation Agents

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

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

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. - 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}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026