A Lie Detector Test for Language Models: Reading Knowledge a Model Won't Reveal

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.

Prior white-box studies show that large language models can retain latent traces of target knowledge after unlearning, even when the knowledge is no longer expressed in their outputs. However, existing audits remain limited to one-off diagnostics: it is unclear whether these residual signals can predict future recovery under continued training or serve as reliable optimization targets. Resolving this gap is essential to determine whether internal auditing can move beyond post-hoc evaluation toward proactive risk monitoring and safer unlearning. We propose J-Access, an inference-time audit that uses the Jacobian lens to map intermediate representations into vocabulary space and measures how often target concepts remain accessible along the model's output pathway. We hypothesize that residual accessibility reflects recovery susceptibility: knowledge that remains closer to the output pathway requires less fine-tuning to restore, leading to faster recovery. We audit 398 public unlearned models spanning eight unlearning methods. We find that: (1) most unlearned models retain access above the retain-only gold level; (2) pre-attack accessibility predicts recovery speed and extent at the model level, but cannot identify which specific facts will be recovered; and (3) directly minimizing J-Access does not promote genuine deletion. Instead, the model learns to hide knowledge from the audit, producing lower audit scores but greater post-attack recovery. These findings position J-Access as a model-level diagnostic for assessing residual susceptibility in unlearned models. We argue internal audits should serve as an independent diagnostic dimension in unlearning evaluation, and should not be converted into optimization targets without validation.

A model that lies while knowing the truth is the central case ELK cannot handle with behavioral evaluation alone. We ask whether such deception leaves an internal signature distinguishing it from honest error. Our key move is a control for wrongness: we contrast a sleeper agent (knows the truth, lies on trigger) against a naive liar (fine-tuned to emit the same wrong answers with no honest training). Both produce identical wrong outputs; any difference is about knowledge conflict, not incorrectness. We find deceptive forward passes carry a conflict signature - 2.1-2.3x higher residual rank than naive-liar passes on the same wrong answer - strong enough to identify which of two responses is the lie with 100% accuracy and no labels, across GPT-2 small/medium (three seeds) and three instruct models. Across Qwen2.5-1.5B/7B and Phi-3-mini, instructed deception raises residual rank on every tested fact (18/18, 40/40, 34/34); on Phi-3, lies separate perfectly from both honest answers and hallucinations (AUC 1.0, Wilcoxon p6e-11). The signature survives strategic self-constructed deception (model invents its own lie, AUC 1.0), active concealment attempts (AUC 1.0), and length-controlled replication (20/20, AUC 1.0, p1e-6). Using basis-free relative representations, a probe trained on one model family detects deception in two other families zero-shot (mean AUC 0.933), surviving simultaneous architecture and format change (AUC 0.821), and transfers across five languages (AUC 1.000, length-controlled). The signature is read-only: detectable but not injectable (0/8 both directions). Honest limitations and six negative experiments are documented in full.