arXiv subjects

Wen Xing

Publications and source records attributed to Wen Xing.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Selective Disclosure of Hidden Directives in Reasoning Models: Behavioral Asymmetry and Steering

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning traces are increasingly proposed as a mechanism for AI oversight: a monitor inspecting a model's reasoning can, in principle, detect misbehavior invisible from outputs alone. This assumes CoT surfaces what a model is instructed to do regardless of the instructions given. We test this assumption along two axes. First, we introduce the Instruction-Compliance Gap (ICG): the difference in probability that a model's CoT explicitly references a hidden system prompt directive when that directive is malign versus benign. Across 100 task pairs and 8 frontier reasoning models from 5 families, we find consistent asymmetric disclosure, a higher probability of leaking malign hidden instructions than benign ones, in Qwen3-14B (Wilcoxon $p=0.0001$, $+13.9$pp), Qwen3-32B ($p=0.0011$, $+13.0$pp), Qwen3-235B ($p=0.035$, $+5.8$pp), and similar results with MiniMax-M2.5 and DeepSeek-R1. The detector has 100% precision against two independent blinded labelling passes, and an LLM monitor reading only the reasoning trace reproduces the asymmetry in all 8 models against directive-free controls, identifying the specific directive in 82% of malign traces which the detector classifies as clean. Second, steering vectors extracted in MiniMax-M2.5 via Contrastive Activation Addition causally induce hiding from bare prompts and suppress it from prompts that would otherwise produce it, replicating in Qwen3-14B under a pre-registered design. Benign and malign-derived hiding vectors are highly similar (cosine $0.804$ in MiniMax-M2.5; $0.970$ in Qwen3-14B), implying that in these models the disclosure asymmetry arises from differential activation of a shared hiding direction rather than separate mechanisms.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Frontier Models Can Take Actions at Low Probabilities

Pre-deployment evaluations inspect only a limited sample of model actions. A malicious model seeking to evade oversight could exploit this by randomizing when to "defect": misbehaving so rarely that no malicious actions are observed during evaluation, but often enough that they occur eventually in deployment. But this requires taking actions at very low rates, while maintaining calibration. Are frontier models even capable of that? We prompt the GPT-5, Claude-4.5 and Qwen-3 families to take a target action at low probabilities (e.g. 0.01%), either given directly or requiring derivation, and evaluate their calibration (i.e. whether they perform the target action roughly 1 in 10,000 times when resampling). We find that frontier models are surprisingly good at this task. If there is a source of entropy in-context (such as a UUID), they maintain high calibration at rates lower than 1 in 100,000 actions. Without external entropy, some models can still reach rates lower than 1 in 10,000. When target rates are given, larger models achieve good calibration at lower rates. Yet, when models must derive the optimal target rate themselves, all models fail to achieve calibration without entropy or hint to generate it. Successful low-rate strategies require explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, so malicious models attempting this approach could currently be caught by a CoT monitor. However, scaling trends suggest future evaluations may be unable to rely on models' lack of target rate calibration, especially if CoT is no longer legible.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Can Reasoning Models Obfuscate Reasoning? Stress-Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitorability

Recent findings suggest that misaligned models may exhibit deceptive behavior, raising concerns about output trustworthiness. Chain-of-thought (CoT) is a promising tool for alignment monitoring: when models articulate their reasoning faithfully, monitors can detect and mitigate harmful behaviors before undesirable outcomes occur. However, a key uncertainty is: Can models obfuscate their CoT in order to pursue hidden adversarial objectives while evading detection? To answer this question and thus stress-test CoT monitorability, we develop a composable and quantifiable taxonomy of prompts to elicit CoT obfuscation. We evaluate both internal CoT (reasoning traces) and external CoT (prompted reasoning in outputs) using toy tasks and more realistic environments in SHADE-Arena. We show that: (i) CoT monitoring performs accurately and efficiently without obfuscation pressure. (ii) Under strong obfuscation pressure, some models successfully complete adversarial tasks while evading detection. (iii) Models do not obfuscate their internal CoT as much as their external CoT (under prompt pressure). These results suggest that while CoT provides valuable oversight in benign settings, robust deployment requires model-specific stress-testing of monitorability.

cs.CR↗