Latent Undertow: How Ordinary Typos Break Probes

arXiv:2609.15994 · cs.CL, cs.LG · Submitted 2026-07-08 · Read on arXiv

cs.CL, cs.LG

Submitted: 2026-07-08

Updated: 2026-07-08

Comments: Published at Mechanistic Interpretability Workshop at the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Seoul, South Korea, 2026

Code: https://github.com/eladd-ai/latent-undertow

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: LLMs handle ordinary typing variation fluently: a typo or missing punctuation leaves both user intent and the model's response substantively unchanged.

Terminology

Abstract

LLMs handle ordinary typing variation fluently: a typo or missing punctuation leaves both user intent and the model's response substantively unchanged. Yet probes that detect malicious prompts by reading the model's hidden states tell a different story: the same edit rotates the readout vector by 43--56 at the perturbed token, decaying below 15% within 10 downstream tokens. Stacking 3 common typos per message cuts a single-position prompt-injection probe's TPR@FPR =1% by 12.0pp, a gap recalibration alone cannot close. Multi-position aggregation cures localized perturbations (<= 0.5 loss) but only attenuates distributed ones, where even attention- and max-based aggregators still drop 3.8pp. For single-position probes, we introduce a KV-cache fork: a short fixed suffix appended after the user message lets the probe read a few tokens downstream of the perturbation, exploiting its rapid spatial decay. This closes 95% of the gap (-0.6pp residual) -- an order of magnitude better than perturbation-augmented training (-3.7pp). The rotation-and-decay geometry replicates on Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3-8B, and Gemma-4-E4B; probe evaluation is on Llama-3.1-8B. Code: https://github.com/eladd-ai/latent-undertow

Related papers