HackerPapers

arXiv:2603.05494cs.LG

Censored LLMs as a Natural Testbed for Secret Knowledge Elicitation

Helena Casademunt, Bartosz Cywiński, Khoi Tran, Arya Jakkli, Samuel Marks, Neel Nanda

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Large language models sometimes produce false or misleading responses. Two approaches to this problem are honesty elicitation -- modifying prompts or weights so that the model answers truthfully -- and lie detection -- classifying whether a given response is false. Prior work evaluates such methods on models specifically trained to lie or conceal information, but these artificial constructions may not resemble naturally-occurring dishonesty. We instead study open-weights LLMs from Chinese developers, which are trained to censor politically sensitive topics: Qwen3 models frequently produce falsehoods about subjects like Falun Gong or the Tiananmen protests while occasionally answering correctly, indicating they possess knowledge they are trained to suppress. Using this as a testbed, we evaluate a suite of elicitation and lie detection techniques. For honesty elicitation, sampling without a chat template, few-shot prompting, and fine-tuning on generic honesty data most reliably increase truthful responses. For lie detection, prompting the censored model to classify its own responses performs near an uncensored-model upper bound, and linear probes trained on unrelated data offer a cheaper alternative. The strongest honesty elicitation techniques also transfer to frontier open-weights models including DeepSeek R1. Notably, no technique fully eliminates false responses. We release all prompts, code, and transcripts.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.LGMachine Learning cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.CLComputation and Language

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Sep 2026 to Sep 2026.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • There's some cool research that looks at how strongly the weights are aligned through training vs adherence to the system prompt. Like when you know a model is lying through censorship: https://arxiv.org/html/2603.05494v2 Presumably if negative guidance is in the system prompt…

      throwaway219450View on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.