Sleep & Wellness Guide

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

2026-07-08

Key Takeaway

A robotics research paper on Does Bielik Know What It Doesn't Know? Activation Dispersion Separates Entity Familiarity from Factual Reliability Across Model Scale.

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充:本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

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.

5.0Practicality
7.0Scientific Evidence
4.0Effectiveness

Sources & References

Need to track a shipment?

Use our free logistics tracking tool to check real-time delivery status for USPS, FedEx, UPS, DHL, Amazon and 1000+ carriers worldwide.

Track a Package Now

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.
Login or register to leave a comment