mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Investigating Linear Probe Robustness to Linguistic Register, Medical Specialty, and Corpus Shifts in Medical QA

arXiv 2609.01361 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2026cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Interpreting biomedical and science models

Abstract (arXiv)

Linear classifiers trained on hidden states of a large language model (LLM), linear probes, can flag factual errors from a single forward pass. Geometrically, that implies that true and false statements separate along a stable direction in hidden state space, i.e., the truth direction. Prior work disagrees on whether this generalises across input shifts, but the disagreement is hard to interpret because cross-dataset probe transfer experiments confound several kinds of input change at once. We isolate three such variables in medical question-answering (QA): writing style (register), domain (medical specialty), and corpus (dataset). We build a benchmark using 500 MedQA entries, each rewritten into four styles (textbook, patient, clinical note, colloquial), annotated with clinical specialty, and grouped with two other exam corpora, MedMCQA and MMLU-medical, for cross-dataset evaluation. Probing four open-weight LLMs (2--8B), we find that the truth direction is largely robust to writing style (mean Deltaregister ≈ 0.10 AUROC on held-out facts) and to medical specialty (Deltaspecialty ≈ 0.03), but degrades unevenly across corpora: by 0.12 AUROC on MMLU-medical and by 0.21 on MedMCQA, roughly twice the register gap. The register result replicates with a second generator and carries over to human-written patient questions. The truth direction is therefore largely stable within the medical domain but breaks under some corpus shifts, and question format does not explain the break, which suggests that the signal a linear probe recovers is partly bound to dataset structure rather than to medical knowledge alone.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Interpreting biomedical and science models, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 18 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

Builds on

18 of 34 references.

References · 18

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  4. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
  5. 2020What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Examscited by 1,356
  6. 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
  7. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
  8. 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
  9. 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
  10. 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
  11. 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 244
  12. 2024CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklistscited by 94
6 more
  1. 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 79
  2. 2023Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblockscited by 78
  3. 2025Hallucination Detection in LLMs Using Spectral Features of Attention Mapscited by 43
  4. 2025Real-Time Detection of Hallucinated Entities in Long-Form Generationcited by 34
  5. 2025LLM Knowledge is Brittle: Truthfulness Representations Rely on Superficial Resemblancecited by 9
  6. 2024Truth-value judgment in language models: 'truth directions' are context sensitivecited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026When Large Language Models Fail in Healthcare: Evaluating Sensitivity to Prompt Variations
  2. 2025On the Robustness of Answer Formats in Medical Reasoning Models
  3. 2026When Chain-of-Thought Backfires: Evaluating Prompt Sensitivity in Medical Language Models
  4. 2026Measuring Epistemic Resilience of LLMs Under Misleading Medical Context
  5. 2025Trustworthy Medical Question Answering: An Evaluation-Centric Survey
  6. 2026Mind the Ambiguity: Aleatoric Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs for Safe Medical Question Answering
  7. 2025ALFA: Aligning LLMs to Ask Good Questions A Case Study in Clinical Reasoning
  8. 2024The Limited Impact of Medical Adaptation of Large Language and Vision-Language Models