LLM Knowledge is Brittle: Truthfulness Representations Rely on Superficial Resemblance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliable, they must learn robust knowledge that can be generally applied in diverse settings -- often unlike those seen during training. Yet, extensive research has shown that LLM performance can be brittle, with models exhibiting excessive sensitivity to trivial input variations. In this work, we explore whether this brittleness is a direct result of unstable internal knowledge representations. To explore this question, we build on previous work showing that LLM representations encode statement truthfulness -- i.e., true, factual statements can be easily separated from false, inaccurate ones. Specifically, we test the robustness of learned knowledge by evaluating representation separability on samples that have undergone superficial transformations to drive them out-of-distribution (OOD), such as typos or reformulations. By applying semantically-preserving perturbations, we study how separability degrades as statements become more OOD, across four LLM families, five evaluation datasets, and three knowledge probing methods. Our results reveal that internal representations of statement truthfulness collapse as the samples' presentations become less similar to those seen during pre-training. While LLMs can often distinguish between true and false statements when they closely resemble the pre-training data, this ability is highly dependent on the statement's exact surface form. These findings offer a possible explanation for brittle benchmark performance: LLMs may learn shallow, non-robust knowledge representations that allow for only limited generalizability. Our work presents a fundamental challenge for the utility of truthfulness probes, and more broadly, calls for further research on improving the robustness of learned knowledge representations.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 47 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2025.
Builds on
47 of 55 references.
References · 47
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2018Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answeringcited by 2,164
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
- 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
- 2025s1: Simple test-time scalingcited by 1,341
- 2022No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translationcited by 1,312
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
35 more
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
- 2025Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?cited by 982
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
- 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 613
- 2025LIMO: Less is More for Reasoningcited by 498
- 2024Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Researchcited by 483
- 2023Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervisioncited by 467
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 310
- 2023Large Language Models Sensitivity to The Order of Options in Multiple-Choice Questionscited by 263
- 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 244
- 2021Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 232
- 2022Demystifying Prompts in Language Models via Perplexity Estimationcited by 216
- 2025Reasoning Models Know When They're Right: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verificationcited by 159
- 2024Infini-gram: Scaling Unbounded n-gram Language Models to a Trillion Tokenscited by 153
- 2024When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboardscited by 137
- 2024Mind Your Format: Towards Consistent Evaluation of In-Context Learning Improvementscited by 83
- 2023Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblockscited by 78
- 2024Adaptive Activation Steering: A Tuning-Free LLM Truthfulness Improvement Method for Diverse Hallucinations Categoriescited by 77
- 2023Do Androids Know They're Only Dreaming of Electric Sheep?cited by 67
- 2023Evaluating the Zero-shot Robustness of Instruction-tuned Language Modelscited by 66
- 2024POSIX: A Prompt Sensitivity Index For Large Language Modelscited by 59
- 2023The Curious Case of Hallucinatory (Un)answerability: Finding Truths in the Hidden States of Over-Confident Large Language Modelscited by 55
- 2024Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMscited by 55
- 2023You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instrumentscited by 48
- 2023The language of prompting: What linguistic properties make a prompt successful?cited by 44
- 2024Changing Answer Order Can Decrease MMLU Accuracycited by 42
- 2024Estimating Knowledge in Large Language Models Without Generating a Single Tokencited by 40
- 2022Robustness of Learning from Task Instructionscited by 35
- 2024Evaluation data contamination in LLMs: how do we measure it and (when) does it matter?cited by 32
- 2024InternalInspector I2: Robust Confidence Estimation in LLMs through Internal Statescited by 30
- 2025DOVE: A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Predictions Dataset Towards Meaningful LLM Evaluationcited by 21
- 2025The Geometries of Truth Are Orthogonal Across Taskscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.
9 papers.
- 2026Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivitycited by 21
- 2026Controllable and explainable personality sliders for LLMs at inference timecited by 2
- 2026Testing the Limits of Truth Directions in LLMscited by 2
- 2026Improving Cross-Format Robustness in Language Models with Multi-Format Trainingcited by 2
- 2026An Alternative Trajectory for Generative AIcited by 1
- 2026SCRuB: Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluationcited by 1
- 2026Diagnosing Correctness Probes under Self-Judgement Confoundingcited by 1
- 2026Semantic Content Determines Algorithmic Performancecited by 0
- 2026Investigating Linear Probe Robustness to Linguistic Register, Medical Specialty, and Corpus Shifts in Medical QAcited by 0
- 2026Investigating Linear Probe Robustness to Linguistic Register, Medical Specialty, and Corpus Shifts in Medical QA1 Sep 2026
- 2026Diagnosing Correctness Probes under Self-Judgement Confounding18 Jul 2026
- 2026Improving Cross-Format Robustness in Language Models with Multi-Format Training10 Jun 2026
- 2026SCRuB: Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluation7 May 2026
- 2026Testing the Limits of Truth Directions in LLMs4 Apr 2026
- 2026An Alternative Trajectory for Generative AI14 Mar 2026
- 2026Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivity27 Feb 2026
- 2026Controllable and explainable personality sliders for LLMs at inference time10 Feb 2026
- 2026Semantic Content Determines Algorithmic Performance29 Jan 2026