cs.AIOct 30, 2026

The Knowledge Layer Model (KLM): Evidence-Visible AI Output, Routing Diagnostics, and Negative Results

Authors: Omer Asim Ozturk, Cihan Aydiner

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

AI answers require more than apparent correctness: reviewers need to inspect their recorded basis. We introduce the Knowledge Layer Model (KLM), an open, implementation-neutral specification for inference records with versioned epistemic assessments, evidence relations, and explicit unknowns. SEDIM, the knowledge and evidence architecture of Nage AI OS, is a reference implementation. We reference KLM v0.3 (repository tag v0.3.0). Empirical material consists of separate internal experiments, not end-to-end validation. A historical platform-domain routing benchmark reports 137/150 classifications across 15 classes (91.3%; nominal 95% Wilson interval 85.7-94.9%); the numerator is recovered from a rounded summary, and historical example membership is unverified. A native-model weight-path configuration yielded 0/15 successful answers in a corrected two-source test. A capacity-growth comparison could not establish a reliable effect because of a defective legacy scorer and missing original outputs. Lexical and scoped diagnostics each yielded AUC 0.008 for silent-versus-contradicted examples, below the registered minimum of 0.65. Legacy packing lost gold-containing text in 118/221 selected cases; repaired packing retained it in 221/221. These measure text presence, not answer quality. Python and TypeScript verifiers reportedly agreed on six checks per synthetic fixture; a separate production disclosure was not accepted. Restoration, re-derivation, human-rubric support, boundary isolation, and bounded-response evaluations remain proposed. Findings are internal and author-reported; historical observations are distinguished from later reproductions. Evidence visibility does not establish correctness, causal reliance, security, or regulatory compliance. Independent replication and a complete public audit package remain future work.

More in this topic

Data Provenance in Language Models

See all 48 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 3, 2026

Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

Sheng Jin, Minghao Liu, Yunze Xiao +24

12077AI · 2M-A-P · 3Carnegie Mellon University +7

LLM EvaluationHuman-in-the-Loop AnnotationFactual Knowledge in Language Models
AskPDF
Sep 18, 2026

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

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

StackOne Technologies

LLM AuditingLanguage Model ProbingLanguage Model Introspection
AskPDF
Apr 14, 2026

Masked by Consensus: Disentangling Privileged Knowledge in LLM Correctness

Humans use introspection to evaluate their understanding through private internal states inaccessible to external observers. We investigate whether large language models possess similar privileged knowledge about answer correctness, information unavailable through external observation. We train correctness classifiers on question representations from both a model's own hidden states and external models, testing whether self-representations provide a performance advantage. On standard evaluation, we find no advantage: self-probes perform comparably to peer-model probes. We hypothesize this is due to high inter-model agreement of answer correctness. To isolate genuine privileged knowledge, we evaluate on disagreement subsets, where models produce conflicting predictions. Here, we discover domain-specific privileged knowledge: self-representations consistently outperform peer representations in factual knowledge tasks, but show no advantage in math reasoning. We further localize this domain asymmetry across model layers, finding that the factual advantage emerges progressively from early-to-mid layers onward, consistent with model-specific memory retrieval, while math reasoning shows no consistent advantage at any depth.

Tomer Ashuach, Shai Gretz, Yoav Katz +2

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · IBM Research · Kempner Institute, Harvard University

Language Model IntrospectionLanguage Model Self-AssessmentLLM ReasoningFactual Knowledge in Language ModelsConfidence Estimation in Language Models
AskPDF