arXiv:2608.29034v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A wide range of methods have been proposed for interpreting language models, delivering important insights into their inner workings. However, differ...
arXiv:2609.01356v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multilingual large language models (mLLMs) achieve strong performance in machine translation, yet our understanding of the mechanisms by which they tra...
arXiv:2608. 06417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The proliferation of misinformation online has driven demand for scalable detection systems.
arXiv:2606. 15733v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Instruction-tuned language models can answer the same causal-reasoning question differently after its English variable names are replaced by type-preserving placeholders, although the structural causal model and the gold answer are unchanged.
The paper argues that language operates with two parameters: amplitude, which measures how often words co‑occur, and phase, a signed relational factor that determines how co‑activated meanings combine and can reverse a meaning’s contribution. Unlike amplitude, phase is not captured by standard word embeddings or transformer attention weights and is indexed to individuals and dyadic interactions. The authors propose six empirical predictions to test phase’s role and suggest that future language models should incorporate agent‑indexed, phase‑bearing semantic states.
arXiv:2605.01609v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We find that transformer concept representations systematically anti-concentrate in the spectral tail of the unembedding covariance, encoding...
arXiv:2606. 29613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures have recently been extended with role-based mechanisms for interpretability.
The paper critiques a recent NLI benchmark that tests the imperfective paradox, arguing that the benchmark suffers from conceptual and evaluation mis-specifications, notably Aspectual Reduction and a lack of strict NLI standards. The authors re-evaluate the benchmark, identify mis-specifications, and construct lexically matched minimal pairs to control for lexical variation. Their experiments reveal that models often exhibit a Sufficiency Bias, accept simple‑past hypotheses without affirming culmination, and that prompting interventions shift label decisions without improving true semantic understanding, highlighting additional failure modes such as compositional aspectual classification errors and surface‑form attraction.
What do a language model's hidden states say about the organization of a single text? From one forward pass, without training, we score every token position on two properties.
arXiv:2606. 05486v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Prompt ambiguity is a common source of failure in large language models, but is difficult to localize because it is a latent property of the prompt, while existing attribution methods are designed to explain observable outputs such as logits or generated tokens.
arXiv:2606. 15521v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tokenization introduces representational redundancy: under a fixed token vocabulary, every byte string admits many valid token encodings, or segmentations, that decode to the same surface string.
The paper investigates what aspects of language model behavior are controlled by activation steering. By introducing Cross‑Encoding Steering Evaluation, the authors show that steering effects often follow the extraction index of answer identifiers rather than the semantic content of the answers, especially at deeper layers. They also find that a low‑rank output‑sensitive component captures most of this effect, and that different datasets (NormBank, MNLI, SC101) exhibit varying preferences for extraction‑index versus semantic‑label following.