arXiv:2607. 27031v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reports on how sparsification, compression, and lottery tickets change model behavior have been mixed in the prior literature, with beneficial effects observed in some studies and adverse effects in others.
By Bum Jun Kim
arXiv:2607. 25292v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Silicon sampling uses language models as proxies for human survey respondents, treating each model call as an independent draw from the persona's response distribution.
By Chaemin Jang, Dongman Lee, Jihee Kim
The study examines how 105 language models choose a single word from a large set of valid options, finding that 46% of the time they all pick the same word, "serendipity." Using 96 prompts that ask for one-word answers across various categories, the researchers measure convergence and each model’s share of the consensus. They observe that post‑training and persona‑tuned models diverge more, while heavily post‑trained assistants are more conformist, and that the field’s answer choices are more concentrated than human norms in most categories.
By Tapan Parikh
The paper evaluates how Large Language Models generate preference distributions for air travel, restaurants, and consumer products. It finds that while each model produces self-coherent outcomes that stabilize quickly, there is significant disagreement across different model families and scales, with little consensus even on the most probable preferences. These discrepancies persist across various decoding strategies, temperature settings, and prompt variations, indicating that the model choice itself has a larger impact than prompt wording.
By Fan Huang, Minsuk Kim, C. Tyler Diggans, Filippo Radicchi
The study evaluates whether prompt‑token counts can reliably identify the lineage of large language models served via APIs. Using a frozen‑threshold approach on 24 labeled endpoint pairs, the authors find that token‑count consistency perfectly separates development pairs but only half of the holdout pairs meet the strict repeatability criteria, yielding moderate accuracy and perfect specificity. The results confirm token‑count consistency as a fingerprint of shared tokenization stacks but reject it as a standalone test for model‑family attribution.
By Bo Chen
arXiv:2607. 10252v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consumed through opaque serving chains - API aggregators, resellers, and inference providers - in which the client has no technical means to confirm that the model answering is the model advertised, and recent audits show that a substantial fraction of commercial endpoints deviate from the vendor's reference weights.
By Tomas Bruckner