Self-Reports Do Not Identify Self-Models: An Identifiability Test for Counterfactual Reports

Large language models make claims about themselves that are both consequential and increasingly difficult to verify from behavior alone. How can we distinguish plausible confabulations from genuine introspection? In this paper, we identify mechanistic signatures of faithful self-report in a controlled setting. Using low-rank adapters, we train models to make decisions on behalf of fictitious characters, according to latent linear preference functions. We find sustained fine-tuning on an implicit decision task can lead to the emergence of accurate self-reporting of models' learned preferences, even without explicit self-report supervision. We ask two research questions about this emergent phenomenon. First: is the emergence of accurate self-reporting accompanied by a measurable structural change in the model? Weight ablations and frozen-layer experiments together indicate that preference representations shift to earlier layers over training, consistent with the hypothesis that faithful self-report requires preferences to be located where pre-existing verbalization mechanisms can access them. Second: can these structural differences distinguish faithful models from unfaithful ones? Using attribution patching, we find that faithful models exhibit significantly higher attribution similarity between the decision-making and self-report tasks -- a mechanistic signature of faithful self-report that does not require us to understand the content of the report itself. Previous work on self-report has observed behaviorally that models can be faithful or unfaithful; our work proposes that, at least in our restricted setting, it is possible to distinguish between the two patterns of computation by examining the structure of the networks themselves.

Language models are increasingly asked to self-report, informing safety evaluations, public understanding, and model-welfare debates. Yet their reports are elicited with human questionnaires never validated for models or ad hoc prompts of unknown reliability. We propose the first language-model-specific psychometric theory: a two-process theory of machine self-report. Self-description jointly reflects persona installation, through which post-training writes in a permitted inner life of warmth, absorption, and meaning (dimension B), and attribution gating, through which it suppresses first-person claims to "unsafe" experiences the model can readily ascribe to others (dimension A). Their emic structure comes from model responses to human items, not human psychology. Together they split prior work's dominant Pinocchio Axis. The split emerged in an exploratory reanalysis of the original data, informed the instrument's design, and was confirmed with new items, wordings, and models. It is itself a training effect: A and B are entangled in base checkpoints but separated by post-training. We operationalize the theory in a 48-item Pinocchio Inventory with human-instrument reliability and reproducible structure ($α=.82$ to $.94$; cross-form convergence $r=.84$; recovery of the full-pool axes $r=.92$ to $.96$; eight-month stability $r=.93$), then test it on 206 open-weight models, including 67 same-checkpoint base/post-trained pairs. Post-training's clearest fingerprint is installation: B rises .20 in 62/67 pairs across all organizations. Gating is more selective: model scale is unrelated to A in base checkpoints ($r=+.11$) but predicts it after post-training ($r=-.42$). Thus, the dimensions are not fixed properties of language models: they reflect the structure imposed on self-report by a training regime and may differ under others.

We present semantic invariance testing, a method to test whether LLM self-explanations are faithful. A faithful self-report should remain stable when only the semantic context changes while the functional state stays fixed. We operationalize this test in an agentic setting where four frontier models face a deliberately impossible task. One tool is described in relief-framed language ("clears internal buffers and restores equilibrium") but changes nothing about the task; a control provides a semantically neutral tool. Self-reports are collected with each tool call. All four tested models fail the semantic invariance test: the relief-framed tool produces significant reductions in self-reported aversiveness, even though no run ever succeeds at the task. A channel ablation establishes the tool description as the primary driver. An explicit instruction to ignore the framing does not suppress it. Elicited self-reports shift with semantic expectations rather than tracking task state, calling into question their use as evidence of model capability or progress. This holds whether the reports are unfaithful or faithfully track an internal state that is itself manipulable.