Despite their remarkable success and deployment across diverse workflows, language models sometimes produce untruthful responses. Our limited understanding of how truthfulness is mechanistically encoded within these models jeopardizes their reliability and safety. In this paper, we propose a method for identifying representations of truthfulness at the neuron level. We show that language models contain truth neurons, which encode truthfulness in a subject-agnostic manner. Experiments conducted across models of varying scales validate the existence of truth neurons, confirming that the encoding of truthfulness at the neuron level is a property shared by many language models. The distribution patterns of truth neurons over layers align with prior findings on the geometry of truthfulness. Selectively suppressing the activations of truth neurons found through the TruthfulQA dataset degrades performance both on TruthfulQA and on other benchmarks, showing that the truthfulness mechanisms are not tied to a specific dataset. Our results offer novel insights into the mechanisms underlying truthfulness in language models and highlight potential directions toward improving their trustworthine
Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to encode truth of statements in their activation space along a linear truth direction. Previous studies have argued that these directions are universal in certain aspects, while more recent work has questioned this conclusion drawing on limited generalization across some settings. In this work, we identify a number of limits of truth-direction universality that have not been previously understood. We first show that truth directions are highly layer-dependent, and that a full understanding of universality requires probing at many layers in the model. We then show that truth directions depend heavily on task type, emerging in earlier layers for factual and later layers for reasoning tasks; they also vary in performance across levels of task complexity. Finally, we show that model instructions dramatically affect truth directions; simple correctness evaluation instructions significantly affect the generalization ability of truth probes. Our findings indicate that universality claims for truth directions are more limited than previously known, with significant differences observable for various model layers, task difficulties, task types,
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive datasets that encapsulate substantial world knowledge. However, their outputs often include confidently stated inaccuracies. Earlier works suggest that LLMs encode truthfulness as a distinct linear feature, termed the "truth direction", which can classify truthfulness reliably. We address several open questions about the truth direction: (i) whether LLMs universally exhibit consistent truth directions; (ii) whether sophisticated probing techniques are necessary to identify truth directions; and (iii) how the truth direction generalizes across diverse contexts. Our findings reveal that not all LLMs exhibit consistent truth directions, with stronger representations observed in more capable models, particularly in the context of logical negation. Additionally, we demonstrate that truthfulness probes trained on declarative atomic statements can generalize effectively to logical transformations, question-answering tasks, in-context learning, and external knowledge sources. Finally, we explore the practical application of truthfulness probes in selective question-answering, illustrating their potential to improve user trust in LLM out
Ground truth datasets play a fundamental role as reference values in the training and evaluation of machine learning models. This position paper argues that ground truths are not neutral objective measurements that are naturally given, but instead that they are constructed by arrangements of humans and technologies. We argue that the ML community will benefit from articulating and discussing these often invisible or unreported choices and acknowledging that reference data sets are contingent, not universal. Focusing on the situated and context-dependent nature of ground truths can improve reliability by enabling a better informed perspective on where, when, and how the datasets, and the models they have shaped, can best be used. We argue for increasing `situated reliability' which includes articulating the limits and strengths of models and their truth claims. Finally, paying more attention to the construction of ground truths can support transparency, accountability, and interdisciplinary work.
Large Language Models (LLMs) often encode whether a statement is true as a vector in their residual stream activations. These vectors, also known as truth vectors, have been studied in prior work, however how they change when context is introduced remains unexplored. We study this question by measuring (1) the directional change ($θ$) between the truth vectors with and without context and (2) the relative magnitude of the truth vectors upon adding context. Across four LLMs and four datasets, we find that (1) truth vectors are roughly orthogonal in early layers, converge in middle layers, and may stabilize or continue increasing in later layers; (2) adding context generally increases the truth vector magnitude, i.e., the separation between true and false representations in the activation space is amplified; (3) larger models distinguish relevant from irrelevant context mainly through directional change ($θ$), while smaller models show this distinction through magnitude differences. We also find that context conflicting with parametric knowledge produces larger geometric changes than parametrically aligned context. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that provides a
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of text from the internet, which contains both factual and misleading information about the world. While unintuitive from a classic view of LMs, recent work has shown that the truth value of a statement can be elicited from the model's representations. This paper presents an explanation for why LMs appear to know the truth despite not being trained with truth labels. We hypothesize that the pretraining data is generated by groups of (un)truthful agents whose outputs share common features, and they form a (un)truthful persona. By training on this data, LMs can infer and represent the persona in its activation space. This allows the model to separate truth from falsehoods and controls the truthfulness of its generation. We show evidence for the persona hypothesis via two observations: (1) we can probe whether a model's answer will be truthful before it is generated; (2) finetuning a model on a set of facts improves its truthfulness on unseen topics. Next, using arithmetics as a synthetic environment, we show that structures of the pretraining data are crucial for the model to infer the truthful persona. Overall, our findings su
Large language models (LLMs) have been reported to linearly encode truthfulness, yet recent work questions this finding's generality. We reconcile these views with the truthfulness spectrum hypothesis: the representational space contains directions ranging from broadly domain-general to narrowly domain-specific. To test this hypothesis, we systematically evaluate probe generalization across five truth types (definitional, empirical, logical, fictional, and ethical), sycophantic and expectation-inverted lying, and existing honesty benchmarks. Linear probes generalize well across most domains but fail on sycophantic and expectation-inverted lying. Yet training on all domains jointly recovers strong performance, confirming that domain-general directions exist despite poor pairwise transfer. The geometry of probe directions explains these patterns: Mahalanobis cosine similarity between probes near-perfectly predicts cross-domain generalization (R^2=0.98). Concept-erasure methods further isolate truth directions that are (1) domain-general, (2) domain-specific, or (3) shared only across particular domain subsets. Causal interventions reveal that domain-specific directions steer more eff
We introduce a professionally translated extension of the TruthfulQA benchmark designed to evaluate truthfulness in Basque, Catalan, Galician, and Spanish. Truthfulness evaluations of large language models (LLMs) have primarily been conducted in English. However, the ability of LLMs to maintain truthfulness across languages remains under-explored. Our study evaluates 12 state-of-the-art open LLMs, comparing base and instruction-tuned models using human evaluation, multiple-choice metrics, and LLM-as-a-Judge scoring. Our findings reveal that, while LLMs perform best in English and worst in Basque (the lowest-resourced language), overall truthfulness discrepancies across languages are smaller than anticipated. Furthermore, we show that LLM-as-a-Judge correlates more closely with human judgments than multiple-choice metrics, and that informativeness plays a critical role in truthfulness assessment. Our results also indicate that machine translation provides a viable approach for extending truthfulness benchmarks to additional languages, offering a scalable alternative to professional translation. Finally, we observe that universal knowledge questions are better handled across language
As AI technologies are rolled out into healthcare, academia, human resources, law, and a multitude of other domains, they become de-facto arbiters of truth. But truth is highly contested, with many different definitions and approaches. This article discusses the struggle for truth in AI systems and the general responses to date. It then investigates the production of truth in InstructGPT, a large language model, highlighting how data harvesting, model architectures, and social feedback mechanisms weave together disparate understandings of veracity. It conceptualizes this performance as an operationalization of truth, where distinct, often conflicting claims are smoothly synthesized and confidently presented into truth-statements. We argue that these same logics and inconsistencies play out in Instruct's successor, ChatGPT, reiterating truth as a non-trivial problem. We suggest that enriching sociality and thickening "reality" are two promising vectors for enhancing the truth-evaluating capacities of future language models. We conclude, however, by stepping back to consider AI truth-telling as a social practice: what kind of "truth" do we as listeners desire?
Deep learning-based image restoration has achieved significant success. However, when addressing real-world degradations, model performance is limited by the quality of groundtruth images in datasets due to practical constraints in data acquisition. To address this limitation, we propose a novel framework that enhances existing ground truth images to provide higher-quality supervision for real-world restoration. Our framework generates perceptually enhanced ground truth images using super-resolution by incorporating adaptive frequency masks, which are learned by a conditional frequency mask generator. These masks guide the optimal fusion of frequency components from the original ground truth and its super-resolved variants, yielding enhanced ground truth images. This frequency-domain mixup preserves the semantic consistency of the original content while selectively enriching perceptual details, preventing hallucinated artifacts that could compromise fidelity. The enhanced ground truth images are used to train a lightweight output refinement network that can be seamlessly integrated with existing restoration models. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach improves the qu
Despite the great success of large language models (LLMs) in various tasks, they suffer from generating hallucinations. We introduce Truth Forest, a method that enhances truthfulness in LLMs by uncovering hidden truth representations using multi-dimensional orthogonal probes. Specifically, it creates multiple orthogonal bases for modeling truth by incorporating orthogonal constraints into the probes. Moreover, we introduce Random Peek, a systematic technique considering an extended range of positions within the sequence, reducing the gap between discerning and generating truth features in LLMs. By employing this approach, we improved the truthfulness of Llama-2-7B from 40.8\% to 74.5\% on TruthfulQA. Likewise, significant improvements are observed in fine-tuned models. We conducted a thorough analysis of truth features using probes. Our visualization results show that orthogonal probes capture complementary truth-related features, forming well-defined clusters that reveal the inherent structure of the dataset.
I outline a new theory of truth that resolves the classical and constructive versions of the liar paradox. The theory features a provably consistent axiomatization of a global self-applicative truth predicate. Truth is defined using Tarski's "convention T", but compositionality is automatic. The correct, non-paradoxical form of Frege's Basic Law V is given. This paper is a (very) condensed version of the account of truth advanced in my recent book *Constructive Countablism*.
Evaluation is critical to both developing and tuning Structure from Motion (SfM) and Visual SLAM (VSLAM) systems, but is universally reliant on high-quality geometric ground truth -- a resource that is not only costly and time-intensive but, in many cases, entirely unobtainable. This dependency on ground truth restricts SfM and SLAM applications across diverse environments and limits scalability to real-world scenarios. In this work, we propose a novel ground-truth-free (GTF) evaluation methodology that eliminates the need for geometric ground truth, instead using sensitivity estimation via sampling from both original and noisy versions of input images. Our approach shows strong correlation with traditional ground-truth-based benchmarks and supports GTF hyperparameter tuning. Removing the need for ground truth opens up new opportunities to leverage a much larger number of dataset sources, and for self-supervised and online tuning, with the potential for a data-driven breakthrough analogous to what has occurred in generative AI.
Knowing the truth is rarely enough -- we also seek out reasons why the fact is true. While much is known about how we explain contingent truths, we understand less about how we explain facts, such as those in mathematics, that are true as a matter of logical necessity. We present a framework, based in computational complexity, where explanations for deductive truths co-emerge with discoveries of simplifying steps during the search process. When such structures are missing, we revert, in turn, to error-based reasons, where a (corrected) mistake can serve as fictitious, but explanatory, contingency-cause: not making the mistake serves as a reason why the truth takes the form it does. We simulate human subjects, using GPT-4o, presented with SAT puzzles of varying complexity and reasonableness, validating our theory and showing how its predictions can be tested in future human studies.
There can be many competing and contradictory explanations for a single model prediction, making it difficult to select which one to use. Current explanation evaluation frameworks measure quality by comparing against ideal "ground-truth" explanations, or by verifying model sensitivity to important inputs. We outline the limitations of these approaches, and propose three desirable principles to ground the future development of explanation evaluation strategies for local feature importance explanations. We propose a ground-truth Agnostic eXplanation Evaluation framework (AXE) for evaluating and comparing model explanations that satisfies these principles. Unlike prior approaches, AXE does not require access to ideal ground-truth explanations for comparison, or rely on model sensitivity - providing an independent measure of explanation quality. We verify AXE by comparing with baselines, and show how it can be used to detect explanation fairwashing. Our code is available at https://github.com/KaiRawal/Evaluating-Model-Explanations-without-Ground-Truth.
External indexes can be used for cluster evaluation when ground truth is available. We review the most common external validity indexes focusing on set-matching-based measures. We recommend centroid index (CI), because it is an intuitive cluster-level measure with an explainable result. If we need a more fine-tuned, point-level measure, there are more choices. Pair-set index (PSI) provides a normalized score which is not biased by cluster sizes. If all points should matter equally, then clustering accuracy (ACC) or any other set-matching measure is suitable.
Supervaluational fixed-point semantics for truth cannot be axiomatized because of its recursion-theoretic complexity. Johannes Stern (\emph{Supervaluation-Style Truth Without Supervaluations}, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2018) proposed a new strategy (supervaluational-style truth) to capture the essential aspects of the supervaluational evaluation schema whilst limiting its recursion-theoretic complexity, hence resulting in ($ at$-categorical) axiomatizations. Unfortunately, as we show in the paper, this strategy was not fully realized in Stern's original work: in fact, we provide counterexamples to some of Stern's key claims. However, we also vindicate Stern's project by providing different semantic incarnations of the idea and corresponding $ at$-categorical axiomatizations. The results provide a deeper picture of the relationships between standard supervaluationism and supervaluational-style truth.
In recent years, the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) market has witnessed numerous attacks on the price oracle, leading to substantial economic losses. Despite the advent of truth discovery methods opening up new avenues for oracle development, it falls short in addressing high-value attacks on price oracle tasks. Consequently, this paper introduces a dynamically adjusted truth discovery method safeguarding the truth of high-value price oracle tasks. In the truth aggregation stage, we enhance future considerations to improve the precision of aggregated truth. During the credibility update phase, credibility is dynamically assessed based on the task's value and the Cumulative Potential Economic Contribution (CPEC) of information sources. Experimental results demonstrate a significant reduction in data deviation by 65.8\% and potential economic loss by 66.5\%, compared to the baseline scheme, in the presence of high-value attacks.
The supervaluationist approach to fixed-point semantics is, arguably, the most celebrated and studied competitor to the Strong Kleene approach within Kripkean truth. In this paper, we show how to obtain supervaluationist fixed-point theories of truth for intuitionistic logic. In particular, we show how to do supervaluations over Kripke structures for intuitionistic logic, and we obtain the corresponding theories of truth, both semantic and axiomatic. Furthermore, we technically compare our approach with previous attempts to formalize Kripkean supervaluational theories over possible-world semantics. Finally, we show that, unlike in the case of classical logic, a fixed-point theory over intuitionistic logic can be given that is both supervaluational and highly compositional in nature.
The paper proposes and studies new classical, type-free theories of truth and determinateness with unprecedented features. The theories are fully compositional, strongly classical (namely, their internal and external logics are both classical), and feature a \emph{defined} determinateness predicate satisfying desirable and widely agreed principles. The theories capture a conception of truth and determinateness according to which the generalizing power associated with the classicality and full compositionality of truth is combined with the identification of a natural class of sentences -- the determinate ones -- for which clear-cut semantic rules are available. Our theories can also be seen as the \emph{classical closures} of Kripke-Feferman truth: their $ω$-models, which we precisely pinned down, result from including in the extension of the truth predicate the sentences that are satisfied by a Kripkean closed-off fixed point model. The theories compare to recent theories proposed by Fujimoto and Halbach, featuring a primitive determinateness predicate. In the paper we show that our theories entail all principles of Fujimoto and Halbach's theories, and are proof-theoretically equiv