Papers › Eliciting Latent Knowledge from Quirky Language Models

Eliciting Latent Knowledge from Quirky Language Models

2 Dec 2023arXiv:2312.01037archive 2025-07-28

Alex Mallen, Madeline Brumley, Julia Kharchenko, Nora Belrose

Eliciting Latent Knowledge (ELK) aims to find patterns in a capable neural network's activations that robustly track the true state of the world, especially in hard-to-verify cases where the model's output is untrusted. To further ELK research, we introduce 12 datasets and a corresponding suite of "quirky" language models (LMs) that are finetuned to make systematic errors when answering questions if and only if the keyword "Bob" is present in the prompt. We find that, especially in middle layers, linear probes usually report an LM's knowledge independently of what the LM outputs, enabling us to elicit the correct answer despite the model's untruthful output. The best probing method (logistic regression on contrast pairs) recovers 89% of the gap in AUROC between truthful and untruthful contexts, and 75% for questions harder than those used to train the probe. We also find that a mechanistic anomaly detection approach can flag untruthful behavior with 0.95 AUROC. Our results show promise for eliciting reliable knowledge from capable but untrusted models, and facilitates future research empirically investigating ELK methods.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 6 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from eleutherai/elk-generalization. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections