Modern LLMs are alarmingly susceptible to surprisingly simple immaterial changes of input prompts: a casual hint, an incorrectly labeled few-shot example, or a fake prior assistant turn often flips an originally correct answer. We study where this susceptibility, spanning sycophancy and related cue-induced biases, lives inside the model. Across five model families and seven BCT bias types, we extract a per-bias direction from hidden states and triangulate it through three measures: probing, leave-one-dataset-out transfer, and causal intervention. The susceptibility is largely installed by alignment tuning rather than pretraining: pretrained base models barely cave to these biases, and their activations carry no cue-specific signal beyond question content. Within aligned models, each bias becomes a single coherent direction that we can both decode and steer along, recovering the unbiased answer across every family we test. The biases stay representationally distinct, however: cross-bias entanglement is model-specific rather than a property of the bias category, and even behaviorally similar biases occupy different directions. The same intervention also serves as a modest debiasing tool, recovering a meaningful share of bias-induced errors while preserving most correct answers across all instruct families. Cue-induced bias is therefore best understood not as a single flaw in LLMs but as a family of distinct, causally active directions that alignment tuning installs.
Prakhar Gupta, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Florent Draye et al.· 0 citations
As large language models are deployed as autonomous agents that communicate intentions before acting, a critical safety question is whether agents that publicly commit to actions will honor those commitments. We place LLM agents in repeated $n$-player games with a three-stage protocol that separates private intent, public announcement, and final action, allowing us to identify whether each deviation from a stated announcement was already planned during private deliberation. Evaluating three frontier models across six games in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups over 10 rounds, we report two findings. First, when agents deviate from their announcements, the deviation is predominantly already stated in their private plan (exceeding 90% in the highest-deception conditions), yet this is not a fixed model property: the same model ranges from perfect honesty to near-total deviation across games. Second, different models interpret announcements incompatibly, some as binding commitments and others as cheap talk, producing payoff gaps that emerge in Round~0 and persist across all 10 rounds. Systems that combine models from different providers therefore cannot assume shared announcement semantics and require empirical testing of model interactions before deployment.
Jerick Shi, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Bernhard Scholkopf et al.· 0 citations
Concept-Targeted Attribution (CTA) provides a framework for moving from behavioral probe accuracy to mechanistic explanations of probe performance, enabling more detailed audits of internal concept representations, including safety-critical ones.
V. Palit, Florent Draye, Terry Jingchen Zhang et al.· 0 citations
