Censored LLMs as a Natural Testbed for Secret Knowledge Elicitation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2026.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026How Alignment Routes: Localizing, Scaling, and Controlling Policy Circuits in Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settingscited by 2
- 2026AI Snitches Get Glitches: Towards Evading Agentic Surveillancecited by 0
- 2026Distillation for Incrimination and Distillation for Capabilitiescited by 0
- 2026Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deceptioncited by 0
- 2026Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deception8 Oct 2026
- 2026Distillation for Incrimination and Distillation for Capabilities7 Oct 2026
- 2026Chain-of-Thought Monitoring Can Be Unreliable in Implicit-Influence Settings5 Aug 2026
- 2026AI Snitches Get Glitches: Towards Evading Agentic Surveillance24 Jun 2026
- 2026How Alignment Routes: Localizing, Scaling, and Controlling Policy Circuits in Language Models6 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025The MASK Benchmark: Disentangling Honesty From Accuracy in AI Systems
- 2025Reasoning Isn't Enough: Examining Truth-Bias and Sycophancy in LLMs
- 2025Are the Hidden States Hiding Something? Testing the Limits of Factuality-Encoding Capabilities in LLMs
- 2024A Survey on the Honesty of Large Language Models
- 2024From Deception to Detection: The Dual Roles of Large Language Models in Fake News
- 2025Quantized but Deceptive? A Multi-Dimensional Truthfulness Evaluation of Quantized LLMs
- 2025Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts
- 2025Hidden in Plain Sight: Evaluation of the Deception Detection Capabilities of LLMs in Multimodal Settings