Papers for

natural language processing tool builders

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.

Folding attention biases into keys simplifies compact key value caches

Folding Attention Biases into Keys Makes Compacted KV Caches Run on Standard Kernels

Abstract: Attention Matching (AM) compacts a KV cache by keeping some keys per head, refitting their values and adding a bias to each kept key's logit. FlashAttention and vLLM's paged caches have no input for it. We fold the bias into the keys along one closed-form direction per head, fitted on context queries, giving a plain cache with AM's size and head dimension and the model's own query path; the output error is bounded by how far each query's projection on that direction is from 1. With equal per-head budgets, unmodified vLLM serves folded caches through a KV connector, matching Hugging Face's answers on all 51 Qwen3-4B questions and its greedy output on 180 of 200 Qwen3-14B LongBench samples. With equal budgets on QuALITY (Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, 8B, Llama-3.1-8B) and LongHealth (three Qwen3 models), the fold is within noise of AM's accuracy in 13 of 14 settings, with lower KL to the full cache than dropping the bias in all 12 where both ran. Under the published per-head budgets, on Qwen3-4B, its Instruct-2507 variant and Llama-3.1-8B, it is within noise of AM in 9 of 10, no longer beats dropping the bias in KL, and the two each win once in accuracy.

Tue 27 OctMachine LearningComputation and Language
The gist
Storing data efficiently in large language models can be tricky because some methods need extra information that standard tools don’t handle well. The authors found a way to merge this extra information (called a bias) directly into the key data, allowing existing systems to use compact storage without changes. Their approach keeps accuracy nearly the same as the original method and works well with multiple model types and tasks. This makes working with big models faster and simpler without losing quality.
Open → 2610.36520v1

Confidence signals provide limited help in extractive question answering

Intrinsic Sequence-Likelihood Confidence in Retrieval-Dominated Extractive QA: Two Pre-Specified Negatives, and What They Do and Do Not Attribute

Abstract: In extractive document question answering whose questions were generated from the passages that contain their answers -- so that retrieval recovers 92-99.8% of what any mode combination could reach, whatever its absolute accuracy -- confidence-driven mechanisms have little to gain. Fine-tuning an open language model on a specialized domain corpus yields a model whose own confidence is a tempting control signal: it could decide which queries warrant further adaptation, and which answers to trust. We evaluate both uses under criteria fixed before the runs were executed, across four 7-9B model families whose adaptation moved closed-book F1 by at most +0.03, and both fail: a distillation trigger on all four families, under its pre-specified three-step transfer budget, and a routing-and-abstention policy in its single-model pilot. Retrieval alone recovers 92-99.8% of best-case combined accuracy under every correctness criterion we test, leaving routers no meaningful gain. The sequence-likelihood signal is insufficient relative to that mode -- area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.65-0.81 under the registered criterion -- before adaptation as well as after, unchanged by scalar recalibration and not consistently improved by token-level temperature rescaling. And the finer diagnostics depend on the correctness criterion and on answer length; on the three adapted combinations where we could test it, selector ablations show no statistically detectable downstream benefit from the confidence term on any seed; on Gemma, removing it changes the selector from failing to passing both registered criteria. The usable product is a set of pre-specified negatives with their dependencies made explicit.

Thu 17 SeptComputation and LanguageInformation RetrievalMachine Learning
The gist
When a computer answers questions by picking pieces from a document, it often already retrieves the best possible answers. The authors studied whether the computer's own confidence in its answers could help decide which answers to trust or which questions to focus on learning more about. They found that this confidence signal doesn't improve performance much, before or after extra training. Instead, simple methods based on comparing some predefined negative examples may offer clearer insights.
Open → 2609.19942v1

Large language models internally track hidden state probabilities

Large Language Models Develop Belief State Geometry In-Context

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) trained on next-token prediction exhibit remarkable in-context learning (ICL) abilities, yet the representations that support ICL remain poorly understood. We consider such representations in a controlled setting: prompting LLMs with data emitted from hidden Markov models (HMMs) and probing for the corresponding belief state -- the posterior distribution over the HMM's hidden states given the observed token history. Across six open-source LLMs prompted with data from 40 HMMs selected for non-trivial belief structure, we find that belief states are linearly decodable from residual stream activations, with peak probe $R^2$-values from 0.83-0.99 across HMM and LLM combinations, ranging from early to late layers. To establish functional relevance, we intervene directly on the probe-identified subspace via patching and steering, resulting in downstream prediction quality on the order of the untampered model, while controls degrade performance substantially. Together, these results provide representation-level evidence that ICL in open-source LLMs approximates optimal Bayesian prediction over a context-inferred generative model. More broadly, our findings extend prior results linking input-distribution structure to activation geometry: from toy networks trained explicitly on HMM data to production-scale LLMs.

Tue 15 SeptMachine LearningComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models (LLMs), which predict text word-by-word, surprisingly learn to understand hidden patterns in the data they see during prompting. The authors tested LLMs by feeding them sequences generated from hidden Markov models, which have unseen hidden states influencing the output. They found that LLMs internally represent these hidden state probabilities in a way that can be linearly extracted and that this internal belief helps the models make better predictions. This shows that the LLM’s text prediction involves an implicit form of reasoning similar to a statistical model.
Open → 2609.17376v1