arXiv Computation and Language October 16, 2026 By Yuchen Li, Xintong Li, Zongqi Fan, Ken-tye Yong, Nguyen H. Tran

Where Is the "Self" of a Large Language Model? -- From Self-Index to Self-Reference

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The paper investigates whether a large language model (LLM) possesses a notion of self by distinguishing between two biological analogues: a self‑index that separates the model’s own material from external material, and self‑reference that allows the model to recognize its own content. Using Qwen3.8‑27B, the authors demonstrate that the model’s internal representations consistently differentiate its own messages across all layers, that the model claims ownership of its messages with a measurable correlation to the self‑index, and that manipulating internal states can reverse or diminish this self‑attribution. The study further shows that the model’s self‑reference ability is enhanced when it engages in a “thinking mode” and that the self‑index influences the model’s performance on arithmetic tasks.

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 Computation and Language.

llms

arXiv Computation and Language

Oct 7

Identifying Introspection From the Inside

arXiv:2610.07186v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models make claims about themselves that are both consequential and increasingly difficult to verify from behavior alone. How can we dis...

By David I. Atkinson, Dillon Plunkett, David Bau

llms fine-tuning

arXiv Machine Learning

Sep 23

"As a Language Model...": Chat Template Switches LLM Self-Referential Voice and Activation Steering Reproduces It

arXiv:2609.25021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to add disclaimers like "I'm just an AI" when asked about something related to themselves. The self-reports from such...

By J\k{e}drzej Maczan

llms safety

arXiv AI

Sep 25

Who Put the I in AI? Provenance and the Admissibility of Machine Self-Report

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) describe themselves, noting that their self‑reports vary with question phrasing. By tracing the provenance of 66 pretraining checkpoints, post‑training stages, and 90,000 continuations across four corpora, the authors show that denial statements are scarce in raw data but appear densely in curated dialogues, and that supervised fine‑tuning makes first‑person claims default while preference optimization suppresses alternatives. The study concludes that both trained denials and affirmations are equally sensitive to framing and fail to meet epistemic criteria for admissible testimony.

By Kristina \v{S}ekrst

llms fine-tuning

arXiv AI

Jun 6

The Self-Correction Illusion: LLMs Correct Others but Not Themselves

arXiv:2606. 05976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources.

By Kuan-Yen Chen, Fang-Yi Su, Jung-Hsien Chiang

llms agents

arXiv Computation and Language

Oct 15

Share the Symbol, Not the Vector: Training-Free Fact Communication Across Language Models

arXiv:2610.19696v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent systems allow language models to solve tasks collaboratively by sharing complementary information. These systems typically communicate thro...

By Xin Li, Mengbing Liu, Hao Jiang, Xin Gao, Annan Wang, Xingwei Qu, Yichi Zhang, Chau Yuen

llms agents fine-tuning

arXiv Machine Learning

Sep 11

Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models

The paper investigates whether language models can identify sentences from their training data by using exact duplication counts from publicly released corpora for two model families, OLMo‑2 and Pythia. It finds that for typical duplication levels, models show only a weak trace of exposure, with a rank correlation near –0.08, and that strong signals only appear when a sentence appears roughly a thousand times, at which point fame rather than memory dominates. The study also demonstrates that common membership tests can be misleading, as changing a single word does not alter the model’s preference, and that controlling for register can significantly improve detector performance.

By Arman Nik Khah

llms