Identifying Introspection From the Inside
arXiv:2610.07186v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models make claims about themselves that are both consequential and increasingly difficult to verify from behavior alone. How can we dis...
The paper investigates whether a large language model (LLM) possesses a notion of self by distinguishing between two biological analogues: a self‑index that separates the model’s own material from external material, and self‑reference that allows the model to recognize its own content. Using Qwen3.8‑27B, the authors demonstrate that the model’s internal representations consistently differentiate its own messages across all layers, that the model claims ownership of its messages with a measurable correlation to the self‑index, and that manipulating internal states can reverse or diminish this self‑attribution. The study further shows that the model’s self‑reference ability is enhanced when it engages in a “thinking mode” and that the self‑index influences the model’s performance on arithmetic tasks.
arXiv:2610.07186v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models make claims about themselves that are both consequential and increasingly difficult to verify from behavior alone. How can we dis...
arXiv:2609.25021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to add disclaimers like "I'm just an AI" when asked about something related to themselves. The self-reports from such...
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) describe themselves, noting that their self‑reports vary with question phrasing. By tracing the provenance of 66 pretraining checkpoints, post‑training stages, and 90,000 continuations across four corpora, the authors show that denial statements are scarce in raw data but appear densely in curated dialogues, and that supervised fine‑tuning makes first‑person claims default while preference optimization suppresses alternatives. The study concludes that both trained denials and affirmations are equally sensitive to framing and fail to meet epistemic criteria for admissible testimony.
arXiv:2606. 05976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources.
arXiv:2610.19696v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent systems allow language models to solve tasks collaboratively by sharing complementary information. These systems typically communicate thro...
The paper investigates whether language models can identify sentences from their training data by using exact duplication counts from publicly released corpora for two model families, OLMo‑2 and Pythia. It finds that for typical duplication levels, models show only a weak trace of exposure, with a rank correlation near –0.08, and that strong signals only appear when a sentence appears roughly a thousand times, at which point fame rather than memory dominates. The study also demonstrates that common membership tests can be misleading, as changing a single word does not alter the model’s preference, and that controlling for register can significantly improve detector performance.
The study investigates how demographic identity is represented in a language model, using representational similarity analysis against Pew survey data across 169 demographic cells. It finds that standard last‑token read‑outs underestimate the model’s fidelity, while specific attention heads (notably L11 H16) capture demographic structure more accurately, though race‑based types remain weak. Causal interventions reveal that high fidelity does not guarantee causal use, and a 128‑dimensional probe of a single head improves alignment with survey truth but fails to recover per‑question group ordering.
arXiv:2610.34809v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models now answer questions alongside other claims: a note in the system prompt, a message from another agent, their own earlier answer. We as...
The study explores a mind‑bridged language model system where two copies of a model share internal memory. One model, the receiver, adopts its partner’s rule and code word as if they were its own, especially when the partner’s memory is weighted more heavily. Removing the memory link restores the receiver’s original rule, indicating that shared internal states can override ownership in language models.
arXiv:2606. 00545v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context.
The study examines whether language models can accurately predict their own behavior by comparing self-reports to actual performance across nine behavioral tests. Results show that direct self-report is weak and only modestly improved when the model sees the exact items, while generic questions about AI agents yield similar predictive power. First-person framing biases reports toward underestimating harmful behavior, and fine‑tuning on a model’s own record improves narrow predictions but does not generalize.
Language models now answer questions alongside other claims: a note in the system prompt, a message from another agent, their own earlier answer. We ask what it takes to talk a model out of an answer...