The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
The standard way to compare two text embeddings is cosine similarity. Scattered studies report that a different metric does better, but never pin down the geometric condition that decides when, or why.
arXiv:2603.04419v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Vision-language models produce different object and use descriptions under different persona prompts, but low overlap alone does not identify...
The paper investigates whether layer-wise visual‑text similarity in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) truly reflects content‑level cross‑modal interaction. By injecting Gaussian noise into the visual stream of 13 MLLMs, the authors show that task accuracy drops sharply while traditional scalar alignment metrics (CKA, SVCCA, MIR, principal‑angle cosine) fail to distinguish corrupted from clean inputs, a phenomenon they term the alignment illusion. They propose the principal‑angle gap (PA gap) as a more reliable geometric diagnostic that correlates better with task performance and reveals when internal geometry diverges from accuracy.
The paper investigates whether layer-wise visual‑text similarity in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) truly reflects cross‑modal content integration. By injecting Gaussian noise into the visual stream of 13 MLLMs, the authors show that common scalar alignment metrics (CKA, SVCCA, MIR, principal‑angle cosine) fail to distinguish corrupted from intact visual tokens, a phenomenon they term the "alignment illusion." They propose the principal‑angle gap (PA gap) as a more reliable geometric diagnostic that correlates better with task accuracy and reveals when internal geometry diverges from performance.
The study evaluates eleven autoregressive transformer models on English agreement attraction scenarios using a surprisal-based approach. Results show that while transformers match human reading times for prepositional phrase configurations, they perform poorly on object‑extracted relative clauses, with predictions diverging across models and failing to capture human interference patterns. The authors argue that current transformers cannot adequately model human morphosyntactic processing and call for more rigorous, comprehensive testing to avoid misleading conclusions from limited syntactic setups.
arXiv:2604. 19139v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve through alignment techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI, a growing and increasingly conspicuous phenomenon has emerged: the proliferation of verbal tics--repetitive, formulaic linguistic patterns that pervade model outputs.