Explore the vast range of titles available.

A growing body of work makes use of in order to investigate the working of neural models, often considered black boxes. Recently, an ongoing debate emerged surrounding the limitations of the probing paradigm. In this work, we point out the inability to infer behavioral conclusions from probing results, and offer an alternative method that focuses on how the information is being used, rather than on what information is encoded. Our method, , follows the intuition that the utility of a property for a given task can be assessed by measuring the influence of a causal intervention that removes it from the representation. Equipped with this new analysis tool, we can ask questions that were not possible before, for example, is part-of-speech information important for word prediction? We perform a series of analyses on BERT to answer these types of questions. Our findings demonstrate that conventional probing performance is not correlated to task importance, and we call for increased scrutiny of claims that draw behavioral or causal conclusions from probing results.

of a model—that is, the invariance of its behavior under meaning-preserving alternations in its input—is a highly desirable property in natural language processing. In this paper we study the question: Are Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) consistent with respect to factual knowledge? To this end, we create 🤘, a high-quality resource of cloze-style query English paraphrases. It contains a total of 328 paraphrases for 38 relations. Using 🤘, we show that the consistency of all PLMs we experiment with is poor— though with high variance between relations. Our analysis of the representational spaces of PLMs suggests that they have a poor structure and are currently not suitable for representing knowledge robustly. Finally, we propose a method for improving model consistency and experimentally demonstrate its effectiveness.

During production of this paper, an error was introduced to the formula on the bottom of the right column of page 1020. In the last two terms of the formula, the n and m subscripts were swapped. The correct formula is: The paper has been updated.

Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) rely heavily on a growing collection of benchmarks and on aggregate benchmark scores, yet it remains unclear what this comparison actually captures, and what these scores reveal about models’ underlying capabilities. Here, we propose a new paradigm for LLM evaluation, by asking whether benchmark performance reflects many independent abilities, or rather, relies on a small number of shared dimensions. To answer this, we apply Factor Analysis (FA) to a massive performance matrix of LLMs versus benchmarks (60 44) revealing an structure of that matrix. That is, a small number of latent factors captures most of the structure in the full task space. This low-rank geometry reveals substantial redundancy across existing tasks and explains why many benchmarks appear to be measuring overlapping abilities. We further show that these latent factors correspond to coherent, skill-like, dimensions of LLM behavior. Leveraging this latent skill-space, we deliver three practical tools for LLM evaluation and downstream users: (i) identifying redundant tasks, (ii) profiling new models using a small subset of tasks, and (iii) selecting models aligned with desired skill profiles. Our method provides a solid alternative to the de-facto standard of a single aggregate score, and establishes an interpretable and practical framework for understanding and benchmarking LLM core capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to solve complex tasks where they must retrieve and compose many pieces of in-context information in long reasoning chains. For many real-world tasks it is hard to accurately gauge how model performance and strategy change as task complexity grows. To evaluate models’ complex reasoning capability in a scalable and verifiable way, we introduce RELIC (Recognition of Languages In-Context), a framework that evaluates an LLM’s ability to decide whether a given string belongs to the context-free language (CFL) generated by a grammar presented in-context. CFL recognition allows us to modulate the intrinsic complexity of the problem by varying grammar size and string length and translate this asymptotic complexity into predictions for ideal LLM performance. We find that even the most advanced reasoning models perform poorly on RELIC, not only failing to appropriately scale their inference compute to keep pace with task difficulty, but even reducing the number of reasoning tokens they use as task complexity increases. We find that these decreases in compute accompany changes in reasoning strategy, as models move from identifying and implementing algorithmic solutions to guessing. For models whose full completions go uninspected, this manifests as “quiet quitting” on hard tasks. Code:

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where free-text explanations such as chain-of-thought and post-hoc rationales are used to justify model outputs. Yet it remains unclear whether these explanations are sufficient, i.e., if they contain enough information to explain the model's output-generating process. We generalize classical sufficiency from feature attributions to arbitrary explanations and prove that explanation sufficiency can change depending on the input distribution, which must be explicitly defined for LLM explanations. We propose using the LLM itself to generate alternative inputs conditioned on an explanation, capturing its beliefs about possible inputs. We formalize self-consistent sufficiency as a goal for free-text explanations and introduce an information-theoretic metric, SCSuff, that enables evaluation of free-text explanations without relying on predefined biases or shortcuts. Our experiments show that SCSuff agrees with targeted perturbation tests where applicable and demonstrate that explanation sufficiency can vary with the input distribution. We find LLM explanations are generally insufficient and weakly correlated with model size, accuracy, or output entropy. Analysis of final-token hidden states shows that top and bottom SCSuff scores can be predicted from internal representations, suggesting that SCSuff can guide detection and improvement of sufficient LLM explanations. The code for this paper is available at https://github.com/rajesh-lab/self-consistent-sufficiency .

Can large language models detect and report their own internal states? A number of studies have argued that the answer to this question is yes. We argue, based on lessons from human metacognition research, that this conclusion may be premature: to be convinced of this conclusion we need to distinguish genuine introspection from pattern matching based on surface-level cues. Furthermore, we argue that behavioral evidence alone is inherently insufficient to establish strong introspective claims. We re-examine two recently introduced evaluation paradigms in light of this consideration. In the first paradigm, models are expected to detect whether their internal states have been tampered with. We find that models cannot reliably distinguish such interventions on their internal states from manipulations of the input, suggesting that their success in the original studies reflects their ability to detect anomalies more generally, as opposed to interventions on their internal states in particular. In the second paradigm we examine, models are tasked with predicting labels derived from their own hidden states. Here, we find that classifiers that only have access to the input achieve equivalent performance to the model's own in-context predictions, indicating that the original results do not conclusively demonstrate that the model has privileged access to its internal representations. We further introduce a relabeled control setting, where models cannot rely on the semantics of the task to solve it, and instead must rely on the internal representation; models perform closer to chance on this better-controlled version of the task. Taken together, these results indicate that current evidence is insufficient to establish that LLMs display metacognitive monitoring.

Modern neural networks often encode unwanted concepts alongside task-relevant information, leading to fairness and interpretability concerns. Existing post-hoc approaches can remove undesired concepts but often degrade useful signals. We introduce SPLINCE-Simultaneous Projection for LINear concept removal and Covariance prEservation - which eliminates sensitive concepts from representations while exactly preserving their covariance with a target label. SPLINCE achieves this via an oblique projection that 'splices out' the unwanted direction yet protects important label correlations. Theoretically, it is the unique solution that removes linear concept predictability and maintains target covariance with minimal embedding distortion. Empirically, SPLINCE outperforms baselines on benchmarks such as Bias in Bios and Winobias, removing protected attributes while minimally damaging main-task information.

We propose agentic automata learning to evaluate the extent to which tool-calling LLM agents can uncover hidden environments through interaction. In our setup, an agent should uncover a hidden deterministic finite automaton (DFA) by interacting with an oracle through (1) membership queries (\"Does this string belong to the target language?\") and (2) equivalence queries (\"Is this the target DFA?\"). This yields a scalable testbed with controlled task complexity, measurable interaction efficiency, and strong baselines (classic automata-learning algorithms). Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that performance drops sharply as DFA size increases. Reasoning models are markedly stronger than non-reasoning models, yet trajectory analyses reveal recurring failures in query planning, evidence integration, and hypothesis construction. Overall, our results show that current LLM agents can sometimes perform non-trivial interactive discovery, but remain far less robust and efficient than classic algorithms for the task.

How do transformer language models memorize factual associations? A common view casts internal weight matrices as associative memories over pairs of embeddings, requiring parameter counts that scale linearly with the number of facts. We develop a theoretical and empirical account of an alternative, geometric form of memorization in which learned embeddings encode relational structure directly, and the MLP plays a qualitatively different role. In a controlled setting where a single-layer transformer must memorize random bijections from subjects to a shared attribute set, we prove that a logarithmic embedding dimension suffices: subject embeddings encode linear superpositions of their associated attribute vectors, and a small MLP acts as a relation-conditioned selector that extracts the relevant attribute via ReLU gating, and not as an associative key-value mapping. We extend these results to the multi-hop setting -- chains of relational queries such as ``Who is the mother of the wife of \\(x\\)?'' -- providing constructions with and without chain-of-thought that exhibit a provable capacity-depth tradeoff, complemented by a matching information-theoretic lower bound. Empirically, gradient descent discovers solutions with precisely the predicted structure. Once trained, the MLP transfers zero-shot to entirely new bijections when subject embeddings are appropriately re-initialized, revealing that it has learned a generic selection mechanism rather than memorized any particular set of facts.