Automated answer matching, which leverages LLMs to evaluate free-text responses by comparing them to a reference answer, shows substantial promise as a scalable and aligned alternative to human evaluation. However, its reliability requires robustness against strategic attacks such as guesswork or verbosity that may artificially inflate scores without improving actual correctness. In this work, we systematically investigate whether such tactics deceive answer matching models by prompting examinee models to: (1) generate verbose responses, (2) provide multiple answers when unconfident, and (3) embed conflicting answers with the correct answer near the start of their response. Our results show that these manipulations do not increase scores and often reduce them. Additionally, binary scoring (which requires a matcher to answer with a definitive "correct" or "incorrect") is more robust to attacks than continuous scoring (which requires a matcher to determine partial correctness). These findings show that answer matching is generally robust to inexpensive text manipulation and is a viable alternative to traditional LLM-as-a-judge or human evaluation when reference answers are available.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into personal assistants with access to sensitive user data, they face a critical privacy challenge: while prior work has addressed output-level privacy, recent findings reveal that LLMs often leak private information through their internal reasoning processes, violating contextual privacy expectations. These leaky thoughts occur when models inadvertently expose sensitive details in their reasoning traces, even when final outputs appear safe. The challenge lies in preventing such leakage without compromising the model's reasoning capabilities, requiring a delicate balance between privacy and utility. We introduce Steering Activations towards Leakage-free Thinking (SALT), a lightweight test-time intervention that mitigates privacy leakage in model's Chain of Thought (CoT) by injecting targeted steering vectors into hidden state. We identify the high-leakage layers responsible for this behavior. Through experiments across multiple LLMs, we demonstrate that SALT achieves reductions including $18.2\%$ reduction in CPL on QwQ-32B, $17.9\%$ reduction in CPL on Llama-3.1-8B, and $31.2\%$ reduction in CPL on Deepseek in contextual privacy leakage dataset AirGapAgent-R while maintaining comparable task performance and utility. Our work establishes SALT as a practical approach for test-time privacy protection in reasoning-capable language models, offering a path toward safer deployment of LLM-based personal agents.

Large language models (LLMs) can internally distinguish between evaluation and deployment contexts, a behaviour known as \emph{evaluation awareness}. This undermines AI safety evaluations, as models may conceal dangerous capabilities during testing. Prior work demonstrated this in a single $70$B model, but the scaling relationship across model sizes remains unknown. We investigate evaluation awareness across $15$ models scaling from $0.27$B to $70$B parameters from four families using linear probing on steering vector activations. Our results reveal a clear power-law scaling: evaluation awareness increases predictably with model size. This scaling law enables forecasting deceptive behavior in future larger models and guides the design of scale-aware evaluation strategies for AI safety. A link to the implementation of this paper can be found at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/evaluation-awareness-scaling-laws/README.md.