Papers for

ai system maintainers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Measuring when AI models learn and retire skills reliably

Beyond Gain: Measuring Skill Internalization for Agent Skill Retirement

Abstract: LLM agents retrieve skills from public hubs that hold up to about 100,000 entries and serve many models. As models improve, a hub must find the skills a given model has internalized, meaning it can do without them, and retire them for that model, yet internalization has not been measured with known reliability. Published rules that compare runs with and without a skill retire on the gain alone. The gain is near zero both for an internalized skill and when neither the model nor the skill delivers the capability, a state we call uncovered. We instead withhold the skill, score the model on a task synthesized from it, and trust a high unaided score only when another model gains from the skill, since nearly half of high scores come from tasks no model benefits from. Under four models, a published gain rule applied with one task per skill removes over half of the uncovered skills. On SkillsBench, 28 of its 31 retirements rest on probes no run passed in full, while retiring on the unaided score costs no detectable reward. Unaided verdicts reproduce across tasks more often than the gain rule's (Cohen's kappa 0.42 against 0.23) but differ across models, so a hub must read them per model. We release 1,251 skills with tasks and item scores under four models.

Fri 23 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
When AI models use skills from a shared hub, some skills become unnecessary as models learn to do tasks on their own. The authors show that just checking if performance improves with a skill (gain) misses whether a model truly internalized that skill. They propose a new way to test if an AI really has learned a skill by withholding it and testing on related tasks, making sure the skill truly matters for other models. Their method more reliably detects when skills can be safely removed for each model, helping manage large skill hubs.
Open → 2610.32322v1

Tests show question changes affect retrieval model answers sometimes

The Company a Question Keeps: Auditing Open Jev-Style Models for Retrieval

Abstract: Jev's documented interface evaluates typed questions independently against shared evidence. We audit request independence in seven open Jev-style checkpoints on 276 constructed three-passage states from 92 TREC retrieval queries. Paired interventions separately change requested questions, displayed evidence, and candidate eligibility. Request expansion induces strict binary flips in 9.1%/8.0% of Nimble's judgments and changes 21.4%/18.9% of selection-or-abstention actions in TREC DL2019/2020 under a threshold of 0.5 fixed before inference. Correct-action rates change by 0.0/+8.2 percentage points, respectively, with 95% query-bootstrap intervals of [-6.0,6.0] and [3.8,12.6]. Field masking traces all 70 request-set flips to the schema fields serialized into each scoring prompt. In Von, fixing a shared separator's position eliminates two eligibility-induced preference flips in selected diagnostic states. Laya-typed's default CUDA path produces five passage swaps without strict binary flips, and both yearly action-change intervals include zero; in an FP32 rerun, its probability movement vanishes at the model's four-decimal reporting resolution.

Sat 10 OctInformation RetrievalComputation and Language
The gist
Sometimes when you change a question or the information shown to a computer model that finds answers, the model's choice changes too. The authors studied several popular models based on Jev's method to see if each question is judged independently. They found that around 9% to 21% of decisions changed when questions or evidence were altered, but often the model's overall correctness stayed similar. They also found technical details like formatting can cause unexpected changes.
Open → 2610.14631v1

Task context changes how language models use shared attention components

Task Context Shapes Component Roles in Language Models

Abstract: Large language models reuse the same attention heads across tasks, but identifying these shared heads does not explain what they do differently in each task. A natural source of inspiration is task-dependent interactions among shared brain regions, which motivate a network view of language-model computation. Here, we compare fixed model components across tasks using identical graph facts, statements specifying which directed connections are present. We measure how interventions affect attention heads and the activation state in later layers (influence), as well as the answer (importance). Task changes redistribute the influence in five open-weight models spanning four families and 1.5-14 billion parameters. In Gemma-2-9B and Qwen3-14B, an activation edit changes an early internal activation vector and switches which fact the model reads while the written instruction stays fixed. The same heads then respond to different graph facts and influence later components differently. For each prompt, we construct two linear response maps, one before the edit and one after it. Each map predicts a later head's response from a measured change in an earlier head. For a separate factual intervention, the map for the corresponding condition reduces mean squared prediction error by 53.6% in Gemma and 5.0% in Qwen compared with the average of the two maps. These findings show that task context changes both which graph facts the shared components respond to and how their outputs affect later computation. A network account may help explain how models use shared parameters to perform different computations. Measurements of task-dependent influence could also guide interventions intended to alter one behavior while preserving others.

Fri 9 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Large language models use the same parts (attention heads) for many different tasks, but how these parts behave changes depending on the task. The authors compared how these parts respond to specific information during different tasks by measuring how changes in one part affect others and the final answer. They found that the same parts react differently and influence the model's later computations in different tasks. This means language models adapt shared components to suit each task's context, helping to explain how one model can do many things.
Open → 2610.13895v1

Language model forgetting includes reversible shifts and lasting losses

When Forgetting is not Catastrophic: On the Mechanics of Spurious Forgetting

Abstract: Knowledge that a language model appears to forget during finetuning often remains stored and can be recovered, a phenomenon called spurious forgetting. Finetuning on new facts can even produce forgetting that undoes itself: recall of the old facts collapses, recovers as training continues on new facts alone, and only then erodes for good. We seek to understand when such forgetting is not catastrophic. A minimal associative memory reproduces these dynamics with three ingredients: keys with shared structure, concentrated new values, and normalization in the network. Finetuning moves all old representations along a common direction, hiding the old facts while preserving their relative geometry; normalization withdraws this shift once the new facts are learned, whereas fact-specific changes accumulate and cause the erosion. Moreover, subtracting the common shift eliminates the collapse in a Transformer trained on synthetic data, and removing a single direction from each weight update restores old facts in a pretrained language model. Forgetting thus combines a shared, reversible loss of access with a slow erosion of individual facts, and only the second is catastrophic. Which one dominates depends on whether the new data move old memories together or apart.

Tue 6 OctComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
When language models are fine-tuned on new information, they can seem to forget old facts. The authors studied this and found that sometimes this forgetting isn’t really permanent—it’s a hidden shift that can reverse itself before any real loss happens. They explain this by showing how the model’s memory shifts in a shared way and then slowly loses some specific facts. This means that some forgetting is temporary and others are lasting, depending on how new information interacts with old memories.
Open → 2610.08718v1

Language model parts adjust predictably after removal of signals

Every Ablation Is a Dose: Counterweights and the Semblance of Self-Repair

Abstract: Ablate a component of a language model, and other components often appear to adjust and compensate. This phenomenon, termed self-repair, has been observed repeatedly, but its mechanism remains unclear. The most systematic study to date concluded that self-repair is noisy and unlikely to have a single explanation. We argue that it has one: a gain already present before any ablation. Any intervention on a causally important component can be viewed as a point on a coordinate axis $λ$, the signed strength of a counterfactual contrast. Hence, conventional ablation methods are uncalibrated points on this axis. We show that the causal repair response for a fine-grained unit $r$ is governed by an affine law, $E_r(λ)=\mathrm{own}_r+γ_rλ$. The slope $γ_r$ is a fixed coefficient that consistently influences the model, with or without ablation, and its sign determines whether the unit counteracts or reinforces the removed signal. On a factual-verdict task across four models from distinct families (Gemma, Qwen, LLaMA, and Mistral), we identify components including MLP neurons, OV neurons, and singular directions that follow this affine law, 68 of 81 downstream directions in all. Moreover, we can anticipate the magnitude of $γ_r$ from the fixed weights. On the IOI circuit of GPT-2 Small, seven of the ten heads the intervention can reach follow the law, and all seven are counterweights. From this perspective, what may appear as self-repair is a counterweight performing its usual operation when the contrastive signal emerges at the core.

Thu 1 OctMachine LearningComputation and Language
The gist
When a piece of a language AI is removed, other pieces seem to adjust as if fixing the problem. The authors explain that this apparent self-fixing is actually a predictable response already present before removal. They found a simple mathematical rule that describes how other parts increase or decrease their activity when one part is changed. This rule holds true across several AI models and different components inside those models. So, the so-called self-repair is actually just normal balancing behavior in the model's parts.
Open → 2610.02173v1

Ambiguity and underspecification change how language models learn words

Compact Language, Complex Model Shifts: How and Where Ambiguity and Underspecification Affect LLMs

Abstract: We analyze how lexical ambiguity and underspecification affect language model training. We create artificial homonyms and artificial hypernyms as pseudowords and analyze the generative performance of language models as they are trained with increasing amounts of these ambiguous or underspecified pseudoword types. We further analyze whether the models disambiguate ambiguous or underspecified statements and provide a first mechanistic account of how ambiguity and disambiguation are represented internally. Our main results show that both ambiguity and underspecification increase model performance in ways that scale with their influence on the language's type-token ratio. However, the accuracy of generating sequences containing ambiguous words or their synonyms decreases compared to other texts. We also show that internal representations of pseudowords reflect disambiguation of pseudo-homonyms, but underspecification of pseudo-hypernyms is maintained during the generative process.

Wed 30 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Language models can get confused by words that have multiple meanings or are unclear. The authors made fake words with multiple meanings and vague meanings to see how models learn them when trained more and more. They found that models get better overall with more ambiguous words but make more mistakes generating sentences with those tricky words. Inside the models, meanings of words with multiple interpretations get separated, but vague word meanings stay unclear as the model writes sentences.
Open → 2609.39572v1

New theory predicts forgetting and coexistence in continual learning

Neural Succession: A Mesoscopic Theory of Invasion, Coexistence, and Stabilization in Continual Learning

Abstract: Continual learning is usually studied through mechanisms that preserve old knowledge. We develop Successional Learning Theory (SLT), a mesoscopic account in which the current representation is a resident community, the incoming task is an invader, forgetting is resident displacement, joint retention is coexistence, replay is resident reinforcement, and training moves from establishment toward stabilization. Its empirical coordinate is directional pre-invasion compatibility, measured on the resident model before the incoming task is learned. Across eight experiments, compatibility orders later forgetting on the 20 directed Split-CIFAR-10 transitions (three-repeat r=-0.789, incoming-task cluster 95% CI [-0.90,-0.72], every repeat alone r<=-0.67), forecasts held-out forgetting with 24% lower error than a no-information baseline, and reproduces under controlled MNIST permutations and CIFAR-10 rotations (r=-0.804, -0.718). On an 84-transition suite, compatibility separates coexistence from exclusion at every retention threshold (AUC 0.93-0.97). Replay repairs every transition with at most 325 stored examples and is most efficient where displacement is largest. Compatibility reaches |r|=0.720, while activation, representation, Jacobian, and fixed-coefficient Lotka-Volterra specializations do not. Plasticity and feature turnover fall reliably from early to late training (15/15 and 14/15 runs). We formalize a minimum habitat-modification bound, a displacement floor, a sufficient coexistence condition, an identifiability law with a range-restriction corollary, successional stabilization, and local reinforcement. The identifiability law also predicts where the coordinate loses leverage, and the prediction matches three CIFAR-100 partitions and five optimizer regimes. SLT is a pre-adaptation diagnostic that complements replay, regularization, and projection methods.

Mon 28 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Continual learning means training AI models on new tasks without forgetting old ones. The authors introduce Successional Learning Theory, which treats learned knowledge like a community facing an invading task. Their theory measures how compatible an incoming task is with current knowledge to predict when forgetting happens or if old and new knowledge can coexist. They tested this idea extensively across many datasets and found it predicts forgetting better than previous methods. This helps improve understanding of continual learning and how to maintain knowledge over time.
Open → 2609.36375v1

Probe accuracy rises but steering repair varies with model size

Decodable In-Context State and Model Output Across Training

Abstract: Prior work established that a probe can decode an in-context binding on model errors and that probe-guided steering can repair some of them. We follow probe accuracy, model output, and steering response across public pretraining and post-training checkpoints. Probe accuracy rises during Pythia pretraining, while probe-guided steering moves from negligible all-trial benefit to a larger benefit at two model sizes. Saved scores distinguish probe-correct errors with low and above-uniform model probability for the correct candidate. Oracle-target steering already repairs many early errors, but saved aggregates cannot separate target quality from intervention sensitivity. A held-out comparison of decoders trained on the final state or candidate logits finds no detected final-state advantage on late-checkpoint model errors. An information-theoretic counterexample explains why decodability on errors alone cannot establish discarded output information. The connection to downstream omissions remains open.

Fri 25 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
This paper studies how well you can read a model's internal state to understand and fix its mistakes as it trains over time. The authors found that the ability to decode these internal signals improves as training progresses, but using this information to correct errors works better only in some models. They also show that just because you can decode error signals inside the model doesn't mean all important output information is preserved. Some questions remain about how these internal signals relate to what the model leaves out in its final answers.
Open → 2609.31401v1

Model behavior mapped when repeating own tokens identifies architectures

Where a Model Sends Its Own Repeated Token

Abstract: Black-box model identification works by scoring a model's response to natural-language prompts. One line of work feeds models a degenerate input -- their own token, repeated -- to find a failure mode rather than an identity. We take that input and ask where the model goes when it does not. For each token t, read argmax p(. | t, t) in one forward pass; the result is a map on the whole vocabulary, with two halves. The first -- which tokens are fixed points -- is partially anticipated, and we report it as a failed estimand: the natural distance on it is 83% cardinality, separates a corpus manipulation by two bits in 3471 against a precision floor of zero, and attributes families at 0.5833. The second half, where the map sends tokens that are not fixed points, is unrecorded; the one paper holding those tokens logged them as a zero. Pairing on the source token removes the cardinality confound by construction (r from 0.9128 to -0.0932) and attributes families at 0.8333 -- twelve models scored against a pool of nineteen -- with chance 0.1389, across seven tokenizer groups and several corpora. Two nulls clear it: frequency-matched destinations agree at 0.1429, independent marginals at 0.0798. Family predicts agreement better than tokenizer (0.2031 against 0.1205), and recurrent architectures cluster at balanced accuracy 1.0 against a 0.7895 majority rate, or 0.90 once each model's dominant destination is excluded -- the figure we stand behind. We measure the robustness envelope: 8-bit weight rounding moves the map less than deduplicating the training corpus does (0.9004 against 0.6353, on one support), 4-bit destroys it (0.0098; 0.1812 at deployment granularity, so not a coarseness artefact), and the precision floor varies by model from 0.201 to 0.9778. All estimands and kill conditions were registered before the data, and the failed one is reported as fully as the surviving one.

Fri 25 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
This paper studies what happens when language models receive a strange input: their own token repeated twice. The authors map how the model predicts the next word based on this input, uncovering patterns that relate to model types and training details. They find that some models strongly stick to certain outputs, and these patterns can help tell different models and model families apart. The study also tests how stable these patterns are under changes like reduced precision and data deduplication.
Open → 2609.31181v1

Language model predicts concepts to improve text generation efficiency

NCP-ArchPreview Technical Report: Moving towards Latent Space Language Models through Next Concept Prediction

Abstract: We introduce NCP-ArchPreview, a latent-space language model that pushes autoregressive pretraining beyond standard next-token prediction (NTP). Alongside NTP, the model learns through Next Concept Prediction (NCP) to predict discrete concepts that span multiple tokens, introducing an explicit and more challenging concept-level objective while preserving standard token-level autoregressive generation. NCP-ArchPreview builds a latent space by constructing a product-quantized concept vocabulary directly from its hidden states, and subsequently learns to predict future concepts via a dedicated Concept Module. These predicted concepts are then fed back to the token level to guide subsequent generation, with NTP and NCP trained jointly end-to-end. We scale this architecture to 8.9B parameters and train it on 5.73T tokens from the Dolma-3 dataset, marking the largest demonstration of a latent-space language model to date. Remarkably, by consuming only 51.3% of the total training tokens, NCP-ArchPreview achieves the final pretraining loss of OLMo-3-7B. Following full pretraining, it outperforms OLMo-3-7B by 2.45 points on the downstream macro-average, including a notable 5.99-point gain on GSM8K. Controlled experiments isolate a clear progression of performance gains stemming from both the latent architecture and the NCP objective. Furthermore, utilizing only 85% of the standard computation, NCP-ArchPreview approaches the training loss of a strictly parameter-aligned 8.9B baseline. The learned latent space remains highly valuable after the pretraining stage: updating just the 17M-parameter VQ module yields a novel, lightweight interface for domain adaptation, while a simple injection of concept representations into a DFlash2 drafter improves the mean accepted length by 4.17% with negligible overhead.

Wed 9 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models usually learn to predict the next word in a sentence. This paper presents a model that also learns to predict larger chunks of meaning called concepts, which helps it understand and generate text better. The model builds a special set of concepts from its internal thoughts and uses these to guide the next word choices. This approach leads to better performance with less training data and can be adapted easily for different topics later on.
Open → 2609.10715v1

Vision transformers reveal reusable world knowledge in their layers

"World Knowledge" in the Weights: Reading Concept Circuits of Vision Transformers

Abstract: Vision transformers (ViTs) have achieved remarkable generalization across visual domains, yet little is known about how they internally represent the structure of the world. To address this gap, we use Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) to read concept circuits from ViTs: directed graphs whose nodes correspond to sparse, interpretable concepts and edges capture concept interactions across layers. Our method yields two complementary views of model behavior. The global concept circuit is input-invariant and can be recovered directly from learned cross-layer weights, exposing the reusable "world knowledge" encoded in the model. The instance concept circuit is input-dependent and identifies the concepts and pathways actually used for a specific prediction, enabling faithful example-level explanations. We demonstrate the utility of concept circuits in three ways: (1) Automatic spurious correlation discovery: leveraging the statistics of our global concept circuits to identify shortcut dependencies within the model. (2) Spurious correlation removal: intervening on the instance concept circuit to steer the model towards correct predictions. Empirical results show that our method outperforms existing counterparts by 11.0% on the Waterbird dataset. (3) Model comparison: contrasting the global concept circuits of different foundation models (e.g., CLIP vs. DINO) to reveal how supervision paradigms shape representational structure. Our code is available at https://github.com/deep-real/VisionCLT

Tue 8 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition
The gist
Vision transformers are computer models that understand images very well, but it's not clear how they internally represent what they 'know' about the world. The authors developed a way to read the model’s inner workings as concept circuits that show how ideas connect across layers. This helps identify when the model relies on wrong clues and allows fixing those mistakes, improving accuracy. They also compare different models to see how training affects what they learn about concepts.
Open → 2609.09055v1