Skip to content
Preprint

Does Bielik Know What It Doesn't Know? Activation Dispersion Separates Entity Familiarity from Factual Reliability Across Model Scale

Jul 2026 · 1 citation · 32 references
Computer Science

Abstract

Large language models hallucinate most about entities they have never seen. We ask whether a model's activations betray entity familiarity before a single answer token is generated, and whether that signal predicts the factual reliability of the answers. On four Polish Bielik models (1.5B-11B parameters), we probe four entity domains (athletes, cities, writers, musicians), each with 42 well-known, 42 obscure-but-real, and 42 fabricated entities addressed by a one-sentence question (504 prompts per model). Two unsupervised, single-forward-pass dispersion measures over post-SwiGLU MLP activations, inverse participation ratio and spectral entropy, separate known from fabricated entities at AUROC 0.95-1.00 across all domains and scales; a supervised linear probe reaches 0.99-1.00. Both clear selection-aware permutation floors of about 0.70-0.74 (empirical p<=1e-3), survive held-out layer selection (0.93-0.99), and persist on real names (known vs. obscure-but-real: 0.96-1.00). The signal transfers across entity types (mean off-diagonal AUROC 0.92-0.99); a matched-template counterfactual shows the only large drops are template-caused, not entity-type effects, and the signal is diffuse across heads. This representational signal is already at ceiling at 1.5B, whereas behavioral factual reliability scales sharply: 0, 2, 10, and 19 of 42 known athletes are answered fully correctly by the 1.5B, 4.5B, 7B, and 11B models under a strict judge. Within known entities, separating correct from hallucinated answers is much harder (probe 0.93; dispersion no better than a first-token-entropy baseline). A five-sample semantic-entropy baseline reaches only 0.71-0.83 at 5x the inference cost. Despite this internal awareness, the models almost never abstain: an audit of 2,520 answers finds 2 refusals and 1 hedge. Entity familiarity and factual reliability are distinct phenomena on different scaling curves.

View source

Similar papers

Jul 2026

The Model Knows Your Project, Not You: Measuring Recognition in LLMs with NameRank

NameRank, a [0,1] recognition score, is built: recognition is paid to named, indexable artifacts, not to credentials or titles, because recognition attaches to the artifact's own distinctive name, not to the roster behind it.

Bojie Li, Noah Shi · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Where Does the Noise Come From? A Variance-Components Decomposition of Non-Determinism in LLM Brand Answers

A crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition is specified that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embeds the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target relia...

D. Żatuchin · 3 citations · ⚡1
Jul 2026

Reality Monitoring in Large Language Models: Self-Knowledge That Transforms with Conversation Memory

It is shown, across two experiments and six LLMs, that source attribution depends on how conversational memory is structured: ceiling accuracy for self-generated content under minimal memory demands reverses to a fragile external-item advantage once episodic delay removes that shortcut.

Saurabh Ranjan, K. Sokratous, Brian Odegaard · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.