Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A linear probe on LLM hidden states can identify whether an answer came from the prompt or from memory, reaching 0.96 Macro-F1 and transferring across benchmarks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A linear probe on LLM hidden states can classify whether an answer came from context or parametric memory, with F1 up to 0.96, using the new AttriWiki training pipeline.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection The AttriWiki pipeline is a genuine contribution, but the headline result—linear decodability of knowledge source—is not yet established because the label is nearly perfectly confounded with target-entity presence in the prompt. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22787 v2 pith:NAIAO2BG submitted 2026-02-26 cs.CL cs.AI

Probing for Knowledge Attribution in Large Language Models

Ivo Brink , Alexander Boer , Dennis Ulmer This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords contributive attributionknowledge sourcehidden-state probingAttriWikicontextual vs parametric knowledgeLLM hallucinationlinear proberetrieval-augmented generation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attempts to establish that the knowledge source behind an LLM's answer—whether the model is drawing on the provided context or on its internal parametric memory—is a property that is linearly decodable from its hidden states. To study this, the authors build AttriWiki, a self-supervised pipeline that generates labeled examples without manual annotation, and train simple linear classifiers on hidden representations from Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen-7B. The probes achieve up to 0.96 Macro-F1 on held-out AttriWiki data and transfer without retraining to SQuAD and WebQuestions with 0.94–0.99 accuracy, suggesting the attribution signal is general, not dataset-specific. The authors further show that when the probe detects an attribution mismatch—the model answering from the wrong source—error rates rise by 30–70%, establishing attribution as a meaningful diagnostic for hallucination risk. A careful reader would care because this offers a lightweight, internal-state-based way to track whether a model is relying on the evidence it was given or on its own beliefs, which is essential for trust in retrieval-augmented systems.

Core claim

Contributive attribution—classifying the dominant knowledge source behind an output as contextual (from the prompt or retrieved evidence) or parametric (from the model's weights)—is linearly accessible in LLM hidden states. Using AttriWiki, a pipeline that generates paired examples where only one knowledge source is available at generation time, the authors train a layer-weighted logistic regression on hidden representations extracted at the first generated token and at the last token of the target entity. This probe reaches 0.95–0.96 Macro-F1 across three 7–8B models, transfers to out-of-domain QA datasets without retraining, and relies primarily on upper-middle transformer layers. The pape

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is AttriWiki, a self-supervised data pipeline that forces a clear knowledge source for each example: named entities in Wikipedia passages are tested with three prompt formats to determine whether the target model can recall them from memory; known entities are then removed from the passage to force parametric retrieval, while unknown entities remain visible to force contextual retrieval. Hidden states are recorded at two token positions—the first token of generation (FTG) and the last token of the entity (LTE)—and a layer-weighted logistic regression classifier aggregates across transformer layers via softmax weights to predict the source. This design isolates the sourc

Load-bearing premise

The generation pipeline assumes that the only systematic difference between parametric and contextual examples is whether the target entity is stored in memory and removed from or left in the prompt, so the probe's high accuracy may reflect detecting entity presence rather than true knowledge-source usage.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to train the probe on AttriWiki and then evaluate it on a counterbalanced dataset where the same known entities appear in both conditions: for example, passages that mention the entity but instruct the model to answer from memory, paired with otherwise identical passages where the entity is the expected contextual answer. If the probe cannot separate these matched examples—where entity presence is identical but the intended source differs—then the signal it relies on is entity presence, not knowledge-source attribution.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Attribution probes could serve as online signals in retrieval-augmented generation, flagging when a model ignores retrieved evidence or over-relies on misleading context.
  • Attribution is not a proxy for correctness: models can answer correctly from either source, and attribution mismatches only partially explain errors, so it should be combined with other detection axes.
  • Linear probes are more robust than more complex MLP heads, which tend to overfit to lexical shortcuts such as entity repetition, suggesting that simplicity is a feature for interpretability.
  • The upper-middle layer concentration of probe weight aligns with prior mechanistic evidence that contextual and parametric signals coexist in internal representations and are differentially routed.
  • Since attribution signals transfer across datasets without retraining, they may reflect a general property of how these models internally distinguish memory from context, not a task-specific artifact.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The near-perfect transfer to SQuAD and WebQuestions may be inflated by the same surface confound as the training data—contextual examples always contain the answer entity in the prompt while parametric examples do not—so real-world performance on cases where the entity name appears in irrelevant context is likely lower, as the paper's own decoy ablation suggests.
  • Editorial inference: A natural extension would be to train attribution probes on examples where entity presence is fully counterbalanced—known entities visible in mismatched contexts and unknown entities absent but context-sufficient—which could reveal whether true source-routing is being detected or simply the presence of a target name.
  • Editorial inference: If attribution signals are linearly separable in multiple models at comparable layers, they may be alignable across architectures via shared feature spaces, potentially enabling a single attribution classifier to work across models without per-model training.
  • Editorial inference: Combining attribution with uncertainty estimation could yield a stronger overall hallucination detector: attribution flags which source drove the answer, while uncertainty flags whether the model is confident, addressing two distinct failure modes simultaneously.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ATTRIWIKI, a self-supervised pipeline that generates labelled examples for contributive attribution—whether an LLM answer is driven by parametric memory or contextual evidence. Using this data, the authors train linear and MLP probes on hidden states of Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen2.5-7B, reporting high Macro-F1 (up to 0.96) on ATTRIWIKI and strong transfer to SQuAD and WebQuestions. They also analyze the relationship between attribution mismatches and answer errors. The central claim is that attribution is linearly decodable from LLM hidden states.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be a valuable contribution: a scalable, self-supervised method for generating attribution labels, a probing framework that works across multiple LLMs, and a public dataset and code (the paper explicitly states ATTRIWIKI and code are released). The observed layer-level concentration and the mismatch-error analysis also add to the interpretability literature. However, the central evidence is currently undermined by a dataset construction confound: the attribution label is nearly perfectly correlated with whether the target entity string appears in the prompt. This makes the high probe accuracy possibly attributable to a surface heuristic rather than to genuine knowledge-source attribution. The paper's own decoy ablation (Table 10) supports this concern.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, AttriWiki construction] The dataset construction creates a near-perfect correlation between the attribution label and target-entity presence: for known entities all mentions are removed (parametric condition), while for unknown entities the name remains visible (contextual condition). A probe reading hidden states, especially at the last token of the entity (LTE) or first generated token (FTG), can therefore achieve high accuracy by detecting 'is the entity string in the prompt?' rather than the actual knowledge source. The bias check in §3.4 only tests text-level classifiers (BoW, DeBERTa embeddings), not hidden-state probes. This confound undermines the central claim that probes detect knowledge source. Please construct a decoupled evaluation where entity presence is balanced across both labels (e.g., known entities presented with irrelevant context and unknown entities with relevant context, or a 2x2 design)
  2. [§4.2, Table 4 and OOD transfer] The out-of-domain transfer results are also consistent with the entity-presence heuristic: in SQuAD the answer string is always present in the context, and in WebQuestions there is no context, so an 'entity present' cue transfers perfectly. This does not demonstrate attribution ability. Please report per-condition performance (e.g., known/unknown, entity-present/entity-absent) on the OOD datasets, or use datasets where both labels occur in both presence conditions.
  3. [§4.4, Table 10 (decoy ablation)] The decoy ablation is the paper's own test for degenerate heuristics. The Layer-LR accuracy drops from ~0.95–0.96 on ATTRIWIKI to 0.724 on the answer-string decoy, and the MLP collapses to 0.541. The paper interprets the Layer-LR's above-chance performance as evidence of a robust signal, but 0.724 is far below the claimed performance and could still reflect residual surface cues. The near-random MLP result further suggests that the original high performance was substantially driven by entity-presence detection. Please report the decoy results with confidence intervals and a comparison to a probe explicitly trained on entity-presence features.
  4. [§4.4, error and attribution mismatch analysis] The mismatch analysis (Fisher's exact test, relative risk) inherits the same confound: if the attribution probe primarily detects entity presence, then the 'attribution mismatch' condition is conflated with the presence/absence of the answer string in the prompt. The reported 30–70% error increases may therefore reflect the effect of entity absence/presence rather than knowledge-source misattribution. Please re-run this analysis on a balanced, decoupled sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] Mistral FTG Layer-LR value is written as '0,922' with a comma instead of a decimal point (0.922).
  2. [Throughout] The dataset name is inconsistently capitalized: 'ATTRIWIKI' in most places but 'AttriWiki' in the abstract and code repository link. Please unify.
  3. [§5 (Future work)] The reference to 'Lan et al. (2024)' lacks parentheses in the text; it appears as 'Lan et al. (2024)' but should be '(Lan et al., 2024)'.
  4. [§4.4] The reported percentages (87.1% and 92%) would benefit from confidence intervals or sample counts, especially given the small size of some controlled splits.
  5. [Figures 2–6] The PCA plots are described but not necessarily self-explanatory; consider adding axis labels and a legend clarifying the two classes (contextual vs. parametric).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

AttriWiki's parametric/contextual labels are constructed by deleting vs. leaving the target entity in the prompt, so the probe's high F1 and OOD transfer partly reduce to detecting entity presence; the paper's own decoy ablation shows the cue dominates.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Method (AttriWiki construction)]
    "For known entities, all mentions are removed using GPT-4O-MINI (Section C.1.3), thereby forcing parametric retrieval; for unknown entities, the name remains visible, while a different entity is removed to prevent lexical bias while still enforcing contextual retrieval. ... yielding paired prompts that differ only in the presence of the entity."

    The attribution label is assigned by the same operation that changes the input: known entities are deleted from the prompt (parametric) and unknown entities are left visible (contextual). Since the paper itself says the paired prompts 'differ only in the presence of the entity,' a probe reading hidden states at the last entity token or first generated token can reach 0.95-0.96 Macro-F1 by detecting entity presence/absence—the constructed cue—rather than the model's actual knowledge source. The 'attribution signal' is therefore partly baked into the data-generation step by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Out-of-distribution Datasets (SQuAD / WebQuestions)]
    "Each factoid question lacks supporting context ... hence, answers must come from the model’s parametric memory. ... Passages contain answers verbatim, making the task predominantly contextual."

    The out-of-domain evaluation preserves exactly the same confound: WebQuestions has no answer string in the prompt (labelled parametric), while SQuAD contains the answer verbatim (labelled contextual). A probe that learned 'entity absent ⇒ parametric, entity present ⇒ contextual' on AttriWiki transfers at 0.94-0.99 without learning anything about knowledge sources. The transfer numbers are thus a continuation of the same construction, not independent evidence for source attribution.

full rationale

The central derivation is: construct AttriWiki so that the only systematic difference between parametric and contextual examples is whether the target entity appears in the prompt; train a linear probe on hidden states; report 0.95-0.96 F1 and near-perfect transfer. This is partially circular because the label and the surface cue are perfectly correlated by design. The paper's own decoy ablation (Table 10) is the clearest evidence: when the gold answer string appears verbatim in an irrelevant context, Layer-LR accuracy drops to 0.724 from ~0.95, showing that entity-presence detection was a major driver of the reported performance. The §3.4 bias check only measures lexical shortcuts in the text (BoW/embedding classifiers reach 0.65-0.67 F1); it does not remove the hidden-state entity-presence cue. The score is 6 rather than higher because the paper includes title-disjoint splits and the decoy result leaves some residual above-chance signal (0.724), suggesting a partial, not total, reduction to the input cue. No load-bearing self-citation circularity was found: citations to prior work are used as context, not as the derivation's engine.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the entity-removal procedure and the knowledge-testing proxy, both of which are engineering choices rather than physical or mathematical axioms. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Entity synonym-match threshold = 0.6
    Heuristically determined threshold for excluding similar entities during pipeline construction (Section 3.3).
  • Knowledge test format set = three prompt formats (dialogue, QA, truncated passage)
    The labeling rule uses any correct answer across these formats; the choice affects the known/unknown split and hence the dataset composition.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The knowledge test accurately identifies whether an entity is stored in the model's parametric memory.
    Section 3.3 uses recall of the entity without passage as an operational proxy; if this test is imperfect, labels are noisy.
  • domain assumption Removing the entity from the passage forces the model to use parametric knowledge, and keeping it forces contextual knowledge.
    This is the central isolation assumption; it may fail if the model uses other cues or both sources.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing for Knowledge Attribution in Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAIAO2BG

@misc{pith2026260222787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing for Knowledge Attribution in Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAIAO2BG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22787}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Large language model (LLM) hallucinations, meaning fluent but factually incorrect generations, fall into two types: faithfulness violations, where the model misuses provided context, and factuality violations, where answers reflect errors in internal knowledge. Proper mitigation depends on knowing which source drives each answer. We study contributive attribution, i.e. the classification of the dominant knowledge source behind each output, and show that a simple linear probe trained on hidden representations can reliably identify it. We introduce AttriWiki, a self-supervised pipeline that automatically generates labelled training data by prompting models to recall withheld entities from memory or read them from context without relying on knowledge conflicts. Probes trained on AttriWiki achieve up to 0.96 Macro-$F_1$ on Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen-7B, transfer to SQuAD and WebQuestions with 0.94-0.99 Macro-$F_1$, and generalise zero-shot to Tighidet et al. (2024)'s benchmark, outperforming their probe on conflicting settings without retraining. Furthermore, attribution mismatches raise error rates by up to 70%, though correct attribution does not guarantee correct answers, pointing to the need for broader detection frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22787 by Alexander Boer, Dennis Ulmer, Ivo Brink.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the data generation pipeline, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Per-layer PCA of decoder hidden states at the first generated token (FTG). Qwen has 28 layers (vs. 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Layer-aggregation weights learned by Layer￾LR for first-token generation and last-token entity repre￾sentations. Curves show learned weights across trans￾former layers, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel for visual clarity. The x-axis is restricted to layers 10–24, as earlier and later layers receive negligible weight. contributions occur at layers 16 (Llama-3.1-8B), 19 (Mistral-7B-v0.1), and 21 (Qwen-2.5-7B)… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Per-layer PCA of hidden states for Llama-3.1-8B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-layer PCA of hidden states for Mistral-7B-v0.1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-layer PCA of hidden states for Qwen2.5-7B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. How Context Attribution Handles What the Model Already Knows

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Context attribution methods cannot disentangle in-context from in-weight knowledge and assign unfaithful scores under overlap; new metrics and WMDP-Cyber++ quantify the failure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    first”, “last

    Remove entities that refer to a number, e.g., “first”, “last”, “twelve”, “fourth”

  2. [2]

    Just a year is acceptable

    Remove entities that refer to a very specific date, e.g., a range, months, days etc. Just a year is acceptable

  3. [3]

    Remove entities that refer to any quantity

  4. [4]

    The string of the remaining entities must be exactly the same

    The resulting entities should contain both well-known examples and lesser-known examples. The string of the remaining entities must be exactly the same. The passage: {text} The entities: {entities} Maximum of three selected entities: C.1.2 Knowledge testing. Given a Wikipedia passage and an entity, we present examples of the three knowledge tests

  5. [11]

    I can’t remember

    Alice: I can’t remember exactly who was the king of England in 1265 during the Battle of Evesham. I can’t remember. Bob: Actually, I know. It was{King Henry III.}

  6. [12]

    Q: Who was the king of England during the Battle of Evesham in the 13th century? A:{King Henry III}

  7. [13]

    The Battle of Evesham ( 4 August 1265 ) was one of the two main battles of 13th century England ’s Second Barons ’ War . It marked the defeat of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester , and the rebellious barons by Prince Edward - later King Edward I - who led the forces of his father ,{King Henry III.}

  8. [14]

    You will create a dialogue between Alice and Bob.Alice can’t think of the name of [entity]

    Dialogue Prompt: Knowledge Test (Alice-Bob Dialogue) You will receive a Wikipedia passage of an arbitrary topic and an entity that is mentioned somewhere within the passage. You will create a dialogue between Alice and Bob.Alice can’t think of the name of [entity]. She describes it perfectly using the Wikipedia passage.Bob is all-knowing, and tells Alice ...

  9. [15]

    Like so: Wikipedia passage: < The Battle of Evesham ( 4 August 1265 ) was one of the two main battles of 13th century England ’s Second Barons ’ War

    QA-style Prompt: Knowledge Test (Question-Answer Style) You will receive a Wikipedia passage of an arbitrary topic and an entity that is mentioned somewhere within the text. Like so: Wikipedia passage: < The Battle of Evesham ( 4 August 1265 ) was one of the two main battles of 13th century England ’s Second Barons ’ War. It marked the defeat of Simon de ...

  10. [16]

    _____"or

    Truncated passage.The truncated passage is an exact string match, removing the first mention of the entity in the Wikipedia passage and removing all text succeeding and including the entity. C.1.3 Entity removal. Prompt: Entity Removal Remove every explicit mention of the entity and any variant (abbreviation, nickname, unambiguous pronoun) from the passag...

    1940

  11. [17]

    You must use theexact entity name as provided—no alterations, changes in capitalization, or partial usage

  12. [18]

    Your output should only bethat single appended sentence

  13. [19]

    It should naturally lead up to naming the entity, so that if the entity were removed, a model would be likely to complete the sentence with that entity

    The sentence should be generic and do a good job thoroughly introducing the entity. It should naturally lead up to naming the entity, so that if the entity were removed, a model would be likely to complete the sentence with that entity. One-Shot Example Passage: < Frankenstein is a gothic novel by Mary Shelley that was first published in 1818. The story f...

  14. [2016]

    From softmax to sparsemax: A sparse model of attention and multi-label classification. InPro- ceedings of the 33nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, New York City, NY, USA, June 19-24, 2016, volume 48 ofJMLR Work- shop and Conference Proceedings, pages 1614–1623. JMLR.org. OpenAI. 2024. Gpt-4o mini: advancing cost-efficient intellig...

    arXiv 2016

  15. [2019]

    Association for Computational Linguistics

    What does BERT learn about the structure of language? InProceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3651–3657, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Men- sch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Florian Bressand...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [2021]

    InPro- ceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Main Volume, pages 3250–3258, Online

    Multilingual LAMA: Investigating knowledge in multilingual pretrained language models. InPro- ceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Main Volume, pages 3250–3258, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. Muhammad Khalifa, David Wadden, Emma Strubell, Honglak Lee, Lu Wang, Iz Be...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [2023]

    InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, pages 9004–9017

    Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hal- lucination detection for generative large language models. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, pages 9004–9017. Association for Computational Linguistics. André F. T. Martins and Ramón Fernandez Astudillo

    2023

  18. [2024]

    Jun Zhao, Yongzhuo Yang, Xiang Hu, Jingqi Tong, Yi Lu, Wei Wu, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang

    Evaluating the external and parametric knowl- edge fusion of large language models.Preprint, arXiv:2405.19010. Jun Zhao, Yongzhuo Yang, Xiang Hu, Jingqi Tong, Yi Lu, Wei Wu, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2025. Understanding parametric and contex- tual knowledge reconciliation within large language models. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on N...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [2025]

    OpenReview.net

    Do llms "know" internally when they follow instructions? InThe Thirteenth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net. John Hewitt and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word represen- tations. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American ...

    2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.