arXiv Machine Learning By Carlo Di Cicco

Code Correctness Signals in LLM Hidden States: Pre-Generation Probing and Repair Geometry

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2606. 14530v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models encode rich information in their hidden states.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31

Why Didn't It Check? Unsupported Final Claims and Their Repair in Two Tool-Equipped Language Models

The study investigates how language models equipped with tools can still produce unsupported final claims, even when a single tool call could resolve the uncertainty. It defines two metrics—occurrence (how often unsupported claims arise) and conditional repair (how often they are fixed when evidence is provided). Experiments on Qwen3-32B and Gemma 4 show that providing the missing evidence consistently repairs all unsupported claims in the Qwen3-32B setup, while the Gemma 4 model never produced unsupported claims under the tested conditions.

By Justin Bronder
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

Legible Failures: Detecting and Repairing In-Context Binding Errors

The paper investigates in-context binding errors in language models, showing that a linear probe can recover correct entity bindings from frozen hidden states even when the model outputs incorrect bindings. Across 16 checkpoints, the probe’s accuracy on failure cases surpasses a baseline by about 0.196, and a probe‑based score improves failure detection over the model’s confidence by 0.079 AUROC. Steering the residual stream toward the probe‑decoded binding further boosts accuracy by an average of 0.168 across eight models.

By Manas Venkata Sai Ravulapalli, Samrath Singh Chadha, Abhinav M. Hari