arXiv:2606. 08129v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) differ in architecture, training data, and optimization procedures, yet they may still develop similar internal inference patterns.
arXiv:2507.21828v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While the task of assessing the plausibility of events such as "news is relevant" has been addressed by a growing body of work, less attention has...
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.
The paper evaluates four metrics—CKA, ANC, GMM dominance per token, and ILO—used to measure cross‑lingual representation sharing in multilingual language models. Across 21 models ranging from 125 M to 14 B parameters, the metrics disagree, and the authors attribute this to anisotropy, where representations cluster in a narrow embedding cone. Only ILO shows a strong, robust correlation with cross‑lingual transfer performance (Spearman’s ρ = 0.90) after controlling for model size, family, and task variation, leading the authors to recommend ILO as the primary metric alongside anisotropy diagnostics.
As large language models (LLMs) grow more capable, they are increasingly deployed in context-rich settings where task inputs are often accompanied by long, partially irrelevant context. In a controlled setting, we find that state-of-the-art models often appear robust to task-irrelevant context at the aggregate level: prepending it to benchmark questions causes little change in overall accuracy.
arXiv:2603. 01437v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning.
Large language models increasingly produce and interpret verbal probability expressions, yet whether these expressions carry consistent meaning across models (or match human perceptions of uncertainty...
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
The study evaluates how large language models (LLMs) interpret verbal probability expressions by mapping words to numbers and testing consistency across 19 models. Results show that LLMs largely mirror human benchmarks—preserving word order, recovering key anchor points, and reflecting the high variance of the term "possible"—but they exhibit a systematic upward bias for negative expressions like "unlikely" and "improbable." Explanation elicitation reduces within‑model variance but increases divergence between models, while a bidirectional roundtrip test reveals that leading models maintain coherent internal representations.
arXiv:2607. 18570v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Discourse relations provide document structure, critical to language understanding and enabling language model performance and ethicality.
arXiv:2512. 20757v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Tokenizers provide the fundamental basis through which text is represented and processed by language models (LMs).
arXiv:2608. 02879v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The widespread adoption of proprietary Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed strictly through closed APIs has created a critical challenge for responsible deployment: a fundamental lack of interpretability.