arXiv Machine Learning By Valentin No\"el

Where You Measure Decides What You Measure: Position Selection in Ablation-Based SAE Evaluation

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 13337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sparse autoencoders are meant to name the things a language model computes, and the usual way to check that a latent matters is to switch it off and see what changes.

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 Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Sep 17

Decodable but Misrouted: Sparse Features Uncover a Readout Gap in Vision-Language Models for Harmful Meme Detection

The paper investigates why large vision‑language models sometimes misclassify harmful memes, attributing failures to either missing internal evidence or poor routing of evidence to the output. Using sparse autoencoders, role‑conditioned probes, and causal interventions on Gemma‑3 and Qwen3.5, the authors show that sparse readouts consistently outperform native predictions across six harmful content benchmarks, revealing a readout gap that is largely due to routing rather than representation. The study also demonstrates that calibration‑only routing recovers most of the performance gap and that the issue persists across languages and is not solely driven by OCR signals.

By Girish A. Koushik, Diptesh Kanojia, Helen Treharne
arXiv AI
Oct 2

On-Device Named-Entity Recognition: A Deployability Study of Accuracy, Cost, Reliability, and Confidence

The paper evaluates nine on‑device named‑entity recognition models ranging from classical taggers to large language models, measuring not only accuracy but also latency and output validity. Using a silver‑gold benchmark derived from an LLM judge panel and a human‑validated corpus, the study shows that encoder‑based models achieve comparable accuracy to a 4 B instruct LLM while being much smaller, faster, and producing no malformed output. Confidence calibration of GLiNER is analyzed, revealing over‑confidence but improved reliability after temperature scaling and thresholding.

By Vinay Kumar Chaganti
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