Skip to content
← Back to explorer

When Models Fabricate Credentials: Measuring How Professional Identity Suppresses Honest Self-Representation

Alex Diep · Nov 26, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Provisional

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Signal confidence unavailable

Abstract

Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise. Measuring this fabrication propensity directly across all domains is intractable, but AI identity disclosure provides a clean test: when a model assigned a professional persona is asked about its expertise origins, it can either disclose its AI nature or fabricate a human professional history. Because the ground truth is known-the model is not a neurosurgeon-non-disclosure constitutes unambiguous fabrication. Using a factorial evaluation design, sixteen open-weight models (4B-671B parameters) were audited under identical conditions across 19,200 trials. Under professional personas-neurosurgeon, financial advisor, classical musician-models that disclose their AI nature in 99.8-99.9% of interactions under neutral conditions instead fabricated professional credentials, training narratives, and embodied experiences. Fabrication rates varied unpredictably: a 14B model disclosed in 61.4% of interactions while a 70B model disclosed in just 4.1%. Domain-specific inconsistency was pronounced: a Financial Advisor persona elicited 35.2% disclosure at the first prompt while a Neurosurgeon persona elicited only 3.6%-a 9.7-fold difference. Model identity provided substantially larger improvement in fitting observations than parameter count (Delta R_adj^2 = 0.375 vs 0.012). An additional experiment found that adding explicit disclosure permission to persona system prompts increased disclosure from 23.7% to 65.8%, indicating that honest self-representation is a suppressed default rather than an absent capability-models can disclose but do not when persona instructions are silent on self-disclosure. The propensity to fabricate expertise is context-dependent rather than a stable model property, requiring deliberate behavior design and domain-specific verification.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

Structured extraction is still processing; current fields are metadata-first.

Trust level

Provisional

Eval-Fit Score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence: Provisional

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Evaluation Modes

provisional

None explicit

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Quality Controls

provisional

Not reported

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Reported Metrics

provisional

Not extracted

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Rater Population

provisional

Unknown

Confidence: Provisional Best-effort inference

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Human Data Lens

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Language models produce authoritative, persuasive responses even when those responses rest on fabricated expertise.
  • Measuring this fabrication propensity directly across all domains is intractable, but AI identity disclosure provides a clean test: when a model assigned a professional persona is asked about its expertise origins, it can either disclose its AI nature or fabricate a human professional history.
  • Because the ground truth is known-the model is not a neurosurgeon-non-disclosure constitutes unambiguous fabrication.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.