The standard way to compare two text embeddings is cosine similarity. Scattered studies report that a different metric does better, but never pin down the geometric condition that decides when, or why.
arXiv:2603.04419v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-language models produce different object and use descriptions under different persona prompts, but low overlap alone does not identify...
The paper investigates whether layer-wise visual‑text similarity in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) truly reflects content‑level cross‑modal interaction. By injecting Gaussian noise into the visual stream of 13 MLLMs, the authors show that task accuracy drops sharply while traditional scalar alignment metrics (CKA, SVCCA, MIR, principal‑angle cosine) fail to distinguish corrupted from clean inputs, a phenomenon they term the alignment illusion. They propose the principal‑angle gap (PA gap) as a more reliable geometric diagnostic that correlates better with task performance and reveals when internal geometry diverges from accuracy.
The paper investigates whether layer-wise visual‑text similarity in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) truly reflects cross‑modal content integration. By injecting Gaussian noise into the visual stream of 13 MLLMs, the authors show that common scalar alignment metrics (CKA, SVCCA, MIR, principal‑angle cosine) fail to distinguish corrupted from intact visual tokens, a phenomenon they term the "alignment illusion." They propose the principal‑angle gap (PA gap) as a more reliable geometric diagnostic that correlates better with task accuracy and reveals when internal geometry diverges from performance.
The study evaluates eleven autoregressive transformer models on English agreement attraction scenarios using a surprisal-based approach. Results show that while transformers match human reading times for prepositional phrase configurations, they perform poorly on object‑extracted relative clauses, with predictions diverging across models and failing to capture human interference patterns. The authors argue that current transformers cannot adequately model human morphosyntactic processing and call for more rigorous, comprehensive testing to avoid misleading conclusions from limited syntactic setups.
arXiv:2604. 19139v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve through alignment techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI, a growing and increasingly conspicuous phenomenon has emerged: the proliferation of verbal tics--repetitive, formulaic linguistic patterns that pervade model outputs.
The paper investigates how the modality gap— the separation between image and text representations in contrastive vision‑language models—affects different downstream tasks. By showing that a single dominant direction accounts for most of the image‑text mean separation, the authors explain why reducing or removing this gap can improve zero‑shot classification, degrade retrieval, or restore performance depending on the task. The study provides a geometric framework that clarifies when and why gap interventions should be applied in vision‑language systems.
arXiv:2510.01030v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The human ability to translate diverse perceptual and linguistic inputs into structured behavior has been thought to rest on learning robust repres...
arXiv:2608. 06300v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatic speaking assessment systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings to mark second language (L2) learners' speaking tests, making it critical to show that their scores depend on speaking proficiency rather than irrelevant speaker attributes such as first language (L1) or age.
The paper extends mechanistic interpretability of large language models by modeling concepts as low‑dimensional non‑linear manifolds rather than linear subspaces. It introduces a concept‑based alignment (CBA) score to compare these manifolds across layers and models, revealing block structures in intermediate layers, a shift from syntax‑dominated to mixed syntactic‑semantic concepts, and training‑dependent multilingual sharing. The study also shows that alignment patterns differ across model families and training stages, with adjacent stages aligning more closely than distant ones.
arXiv:2505.12196v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The impressive linguistic abilities of large language models (LLMs) have recommended them as models of human sentence processing, with some conject...
arXiv:2609.22607v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue here that the current dominant practice in LLM human simulation: prompting instruction-tuned assistant language models to role-play personas,...