arXiv:2603.05494v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models sometimes produce false or misleading responses. Two approaches to this problem are honesty elicitation — modifying prompts or weights so that the model answers truthfully — and lie detection — classifying whether a given response is false. Prior work evaluates such methods on models specifically trained to lie or conceal information, but these artificial constructions may not resemble naturally-occurring dishonesty. We instead study open-weights LLMs from Chinese developers, which are trained to censor politically sensitive topics: Qwen3 models frequently produce falsehoods about subjects like Falun Gong or the Tiananmen protests while occasionally answering correctly, indicating they possess knowledge they are trained to suppress. Using this as a testbed, we evaluate a suite of elicitation and lie detection techniques. For honesty elicitation, sampling without a chat template, few-shot prompting, and fine-tuning on generic honesty data most reliably increase truthful responses. For lie detection, prompting the censored model to classify its own responses performs near an uncensored-model upper bound, and linear probes trained on unrelated data offer a cheaper alternative. The strongest honesty elicitation techniques also transfer to frontier open-weights models including DeepSeek R1. Notably, no technique fully eliminates false responses. We release all prompts, code, and transcripts.
Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review
arXiv:2603.18740v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Security code reviews increasingly rely on systems integrating Large Language Models (LLMs), ranging from interactive assistants to autonomous agents in



