arXiv:2607. 14111v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations?
By Ely Hahami, Ishaan Sinha, Lavik Jain
arXiv:2608.21766v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Both capability and safety benchmarks rest upon the assumption that the behavior of language models undergoing a test is informative about their beha...
By Farzaneh Heidari, Amin Memarian, Guillaume Rabusseau
arXiv:2608. 20290v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Whether a language model has improved itself is increasingly judged not by mean accuracy but by which individual problems it gains and loses.
By Cheng Xu, Nan Yan, Liming Chen, M-Tahar Kechadi
The paper questions whether large language models (LLMs) truly introspect by critiquing recent studies that claim they can detect and report their internal states. It proposes two necessary conditions for genuine introspection: privileged access to internal representations and second‑order computation that distinguishes from first‑order task performance. Re‑examining two existing paradigms, the authors find that apparent introspective abilities can be explained by input‑based classifiers or generic anomaly detection, concluding that current evidence does not support metacognitive monitoring in LLMs.
By Shashwat Singh, Tal Linzen, Shauli Ravfogel
arXiv:2608. 01676v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sparse attention is widely deployed in long-context serving stacks, yet no framework audits how discarding blocks changes the influence of specific content on model output.
By Xingyu Ren, Youran Sun, Chugang Yi, Haizhao Yang
Whether a language model has improved itself is increasingly judged not by mean accuracy but by which individual problems it gains and loses. Tracking these transitions means differencing two noisy estimates, leaving them vulnerable to measurement artifacts.