Abstract
A 0.6B language model, asked to verify 1,200 logical conclusions (half valid, half corrupted by a single semantic edit), answers YES every time. Judged by behavior it discriminates nothing; linear probes on its hidden states read the correct verdict at 0.96 AUC, transferring to unseen logical structures and separating foils built from exactly the words of the true conclusion (0.90). We ask where the verdict is lost, and find the dominant failure is a single scalar. The verdict survives to the model's own output logits (margin AUC 0.89) along a well-aligned readout direction; a saturated decision threshold, offset by +4.6 sigma, erases it. The diagnosis generalizes: across 90 semantic-label configurations of a five-model, three-family factorial, behavioral accuracy collapses onto a single function of threshold offset (Spearman -0.93) while margin ranking moves far less. Across a 13x scale range, internal knowledge saturates while free-form behavior is non-monotone: an 8B model underperforms its 4B sibling through an answer-channel failure rather than the threshold; forced-choice accuracy is monotone. The diagnosis is actionable: a one-parameter correction, never fit on evaluated structures, repairs behavior from 50% to 81% (0.6B); calibrated margin decoding recovers 94% at 8B; few-shot prompting works the same way, recentering the threshold (+4.6 sigma to 0.0 sigma) while preserving ranking. Comparing probe to margin separates three regimes: concealed, miscalibrated, and undetected. On a maze task built so foils carry no surface cues, the audit correctly reports the third. In the standard generation setting, answer-surface features and heuristic labels reproduce published probing results without any internal access.
Explore similar work
Jul 21, 2026cs.AI
Linear probes detect corrupted context in language models with near-perfect accuracy, yet this does not translate into reliable failure prediction. The result is a dissociation with direct implications for deployment monitoring. Across multi-hop arithmetic chains, probes that detect corruption turn out to be uninformative about final answer correctness; models forced into structured confidence formats collapse to two values with indistinguishable error rates; and probe persistence across hops fails to separate correct from incorrect outcomes, refuting our pre-registered "persistence beats peak" hypothesis. This pattern of knowing but not saying generalises across model families including reasoning models. As a real-time monitor, probe-based interventions are sharply model and error-type dependent: branch-and-pick is net-positive across models and uniquely non-breaking on Llama-3.1-8B (4 rescued, 0 broken), while reprompt and replace-prior break correct traces at roughly the rate they rescue wrong ones. Probe-based monitoring is a necessary complement to verbalised confidence, but no single intervention dominates, and the deployable answer is model-aware, error-type-aware routing.
Jyotin Goel, Ipshita Bandyopadhyay, Justin Shenk
Sep 18, 2026cs.AI
Large language models can hold knowledge they do not report. A model may sandbag on a capability evaluation, or answer against what it internally knows, and its outputs alone cannot tell whether it is hiding an answer or simply does not have one. We borrow the Concealed Information Test, a forensic method that identifies guilty knowledge by presenting a suspect with the true detail among plausible decoys and measuring a stronger response to the item they recognize. Our method, Probe of Internal Recognition (PIR), does the same inside a model. It presents a question with its candidate answers and reads, from the model's internal states, which candidate the model recognizes as correct. PIR is reference-free, needing no honest reference model and no labeled truth corpus. Across eight models from five families (Gemma, Qwen, Llama, Mistral, and Phi), PIR recovers the recognized answer at 0.70 to 0.87 balanced accuracy, well above the 0.28 to 0.40 unknown-item baseline and the 0.25 chance rate. It stays readable across every form of concealment we test, from prompted deception and trained sandbagging to external password-locked and circuit-broken checkpoints, with recognition between 0.85 and 0.93. When the model hides a known answer, recognition stays high. When unlearning removes the knowledge, recognition drops to the level of a question the model never knew. PIR therefore separates a model that will not answer from one that cannot, which supports sandbagging audits and unlearning verification. The signal is causal, adds information beyond black-box behavioral cues, and extends from multiple-choice questions to free-form generation.
Hiskias Dingeto
Sep 9, 2026cs.AI
Language models fine-tuned on customer behavior can predict outcomes and generate explanations, but these readouts are often treated as interchangeable. Holding model checkpoint and prompt content fixed, we compare probabilities obtained by scoring answer tokens with predictions generated after a written rationale. Across 13 model-domain cells covering four retail tasks in three markets, including two using fully public data and checkpoints, the scored readout ranks outcomes more accurately in 12 of 13 cells (two-sided sign test, p approximately 0.003), by 1.5 to 14.5 points in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Paired bootstrap confidence intervals exclude zero in every newly measured cell. The gap varies with task-specific supervision and mismatch between training and serving formats, ranging from -2.2 points for an untuned base model to +13.7 for rationale-format supervision. Analysis of approximately 9,000 rationales identifies two correlates: reduced reliance on the dominant predictive feature and convergence on stock formulations. Probability saturation does not track the gap. A third readout, eliciting a probability before any verdict, improves calibration (Brier score from 0.47 to 0.15) while ranking within noise of scoring, but only for outcome rates represented in training; it is worse than scoring when the scored head is already calibrated. We interpret these differences through the objectives matched by each readout, identify training choices that narrow the gap, and propose retaining generated rationales while sourcing ranking from the scored head.
Touchapon Kraisingkorn, Krittin Pachtrachai, Wachiravit Modecrua
Amity Research and Application Center (ARAC), Amity Group