arXiv AI By Alex Kwon

They Infer What You Meant: Models Represent Communicative Intent More Reliably Than They Act On It

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 03598v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a person shares something with a language model, the model often answers the surface of the message rather than what the sender was doing by sending it: share a finished project and it critiques the code; share a raw late-night line and it runs a wellness check.

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 AI.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 24

Prompt-Model Interaction Reaches the Fixed Points: A deterministic, task-free structural readout -- and the factorizations of it that failed

The paper demonstrates that a prompt’s influence is not inherent to the prompt itself but depends on the model, as prompts optimized for one model degrade on another and rankings shift under neutral reformatting. By examining a task‑free structural readout—specifically the fixed‑point behavior of a short‑window argmax map—the authors show that nine tokens of conditioning can move the fixed‑point fraction across most of its range, altering structural classes and model rankings, while instruction tuning has no effect. Attempts to explain this phenomenon through prefix length, content type, bidirectionality, or attention‑sink dominance all fail, indicating that the prompt‑model pair is the fundamental unit of explanation. whyItMatters":"The study reveals that prompt effectiveness is model‑specific and that simple structural readouts can capture this interaction, challenging assumptions about prompt generality and guiding future prompt‑engineering efforts."

By Nicol\'as Vera Z\'u\~niga
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Every Component Is a Lookup: One Linear Graph for Interaction, Composition and Attribution

The paper proposes that two architectural assumptions—(1) attention and MLPs share a key‑value form <phi(S)>U, and (2) components read from an additive residual stream—are sufficient to answer three interpretability questions: component interaction, information routing, and token attribution. By treating these selections as a computational graph, the authors develop Unpack, a backward attribution method that validates interaction scores, recovered routes, and token attribution against established tests across models ranging from 160M to 6.9B parameters. The study also shows that contribution and causal effect can differ, with a recognizable signature in how components change when a task is removed.

By Po-Kai Chen, Aske Plaat, Niki van Stein
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 14

A Probe Direction Is a Property of Its Prompt

arXiv:2608. 13329v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A model that behaves differently when it senses it is being tested would undermine the evaluations we rely on, so recent work has sought to read that sense directly from a model's activations.

By Valentin No\"el