给大模型测谎:PIR 从内部状态读出被隐瞒的答案
A Lie Detector Test for Language Models: Reading Knowledge a Model Won't Reveal
借法医测谎思路做的 PIR,能从 Gemma、Qwen 等模型内部读出它明明知道却装不知道的答案。
借鉴法医领域的 Concealed Information Test,研究者提出 PIR(Probe of Internal Recognition):把问题连同候选答案一起呈现,从模型内部状态读出它认出的正确答案。该方法无需诚实参照模型,也不需要标注真值语料,在 Gemma、Qwen、Llama、Mistral、Phi 五个家族共八个模型上均衡准确率达 0.70 至 0.87,高于 0.28 至 0.40 的未知项基线和 0.25 的随机水平。在被提示欺骗、训练后 sandbagging、密码锁定与 circuit-broken 检查点等隐瞒形式下,识别率保持在 0.85 至 0.93。unlearning 移除知识后识别率降至与从未学过的问题相当,据此 PIR 能区分模型是不肯答还是答不出,可用于 sandbagging 审计和 unlearning 验证。
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.