The paper investigates how periodic subject changes—termed interruptions—affect the perceived novelty and coherence of text generated by base language models. By inserting a new subject every few hundred tokens into a stream that otherwise repeats, the authors find that judged surprise increases by 1.2 to 1.4 points and connection by 0.8 points compared to habituation alone. The study also reports that such interruptions do not produce integrated documents, and that the effect is robust across different models and evaluation protocols.
arXiv:2608. 19893v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Where does the novelty a base language model produces with no task come from, and what can an LLM judge of a long stream actually see?
By Roberto I. Ono Filho
What do a language model's hidden states say about the organization of a single text? From one forward pass, without training, we score every token position on two properties.
arXiv:2608. 09093v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How a document's arrangement is written down, its notation, is a training variable that no dataset card records.
By E. M. Freeburg
The paper argues that language operates with two parameters: amplitude, which measures how often words co‑occur, and phase, a signed relational factor that determines how co‑activated meanings combine and can reverse a meaning’s contribution. Unlike amplitude, phase is not captured by standard word embeddings or transformer attention weights and is indexed to individuals and dyadic interactions. The authors propose six empirical predictions to test phase’s role and suggest that future language models should incorporate agent‑indexed, phase‑bearing semantic states.
arXiv:2608. 04021v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Cloze-style probes that vary how often a target token appears implicitly assume that more copies of a target affect prediction the same way regardless of where the readout slot sits.
By Han-yu Wang