CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 20Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Philosophy and Theoretical ScienceTopic Modeling

Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspection

Open access
Binder, Felix J, Chua, James, Korbak, Tomek, Sleight, Henry, Hughes, John, Long, Robert, Perez, Ethan, Turpin, Miles +1 more·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.13787arXiv 2410.13787
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans acquire knowledge by observing the external world, but also by introspection. Introspection gives a person privileged access to their current state of mind (e.g., thoughts and feelings) that is not accessible to external observers. Can LLMs introspect? We define introspection as acquiring knowledge that is not contained in or derived from training data but instead originates from internal states. Such a capability could enhance model interpretability. Instead of painstakingly analyzing a model's internal workings, we could simply ask the model about its beliefs, world models, and goals. More speculatively, an introspective model might self-report on whether it possesses certain internal states such as subjective feelings or desires and this could inform us about the moral status of these states. Such self-reports would not be entirely dictated by the model's training data. We study introspection by finetuning LLMs to predict properties of their own behavior in hypothetical scenarios. For example, "Given the input P, would your output favor the short- or long-term option?" If a model M1 can introspect, it should outperform a different model M2 in predicting M1's behavior even if M2 is trained on M1's ground-truth behavior. The idea is that M1 has privileged access to its own behavioral tendencies, and this enables it to predict itself better than M2 (even if M2 is generally stronger). In experiments with GPT-4, GPT-4o, and Llama-3 models (each finetuned to predict itself), we find that the model M1 outperforms M2 in predicting itself, providing evidence for introspection. Notably, M1 continues to predict its behavior accurately even after we intentionally modify its ground-truth behavior. However, while we successfully elicit introspection on simple tasks, we are unsuccessful on more complex tasks or those requiring out-of-distribution generalization.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.13787

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Binder et al. (2024) found that models predict their own behaviour better than the behaviour of other models, suggesting privileged access to their own internal states, but the effect was small and only held for short tasks.

    “In their experiments, the models were able to predict their own behaviour better than the behaviour of other models, suggesting an introspection-like, privileged access to their own internal states.However, this effect was small and only held for short tasks.”

    From Does It Make Sense to Speak of Introspection in Large Language Models? (2025) · cites this paper as Binder et al. (2024)

    Section 3.2.2 reports that models generally predicted their own behaviour better than other models did, and describes this as evidence of introspection. The Discussion and Limitations says the demonstrated ability was confined to simpler tasks and that models failed on longer-response tasks. But Section 3.2.2 calls the advantage very small only for GPT-3.5 (+0.8%); it reports substantially larger differences for Llama 70B and GPT-4o, so the claim that the effect was small overall is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • LLMs can learn about their tendencies through pure introspection.

    “Furthermore, others found through carefully controlled experiments that LLMs can learn about their tendencies through pure 'introspection' [Binder et al., 2024].”

    From The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective (2022) · cites this paper as Binder et al., 2024

  • Given the current paradigm of deriving many systems from an underlying base model, it may be easier for similarly derived systems to reason about one another.

    “given the current paradigm of deriving many systems from an underlying base model, it may be easier for similarly derived systems to reason about one another (Berglund et al., 2023; Binder et al., 2024; Oesterheld et al., 2024b; OpenAI, 2023b).”

    From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Binder et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. Physics of language models: Part 3.2, knowledge manipulation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.14402. · arXiv
  2. Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Nova DasSarma, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Her- nandez, Jackson Kernion, Kamal Ndousse, Catherine Olsson, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, and Jared Kaplan. A general language assistant as a labora- tory for alignment, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00861. · arXiv
  3. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 610-623, 2021.
  4. Lukas Berglund, Asa Cooper Stickland, Mikita Balesni, Max Kaufmann, Meg Tong, Tomasz Kor- bak, Daniel Kokotajlo, and Owain Evans. Taken out of context: On measuring situational aware- ness in llms, 2023a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00667. · arXiv
  5. Lukas Berglund, Asa Cooper Stickland, Mikita Balesni, Max Kaufmann, Meg Tong, Tomasz Kor- bak, Daniel Kokotajlo, and Owain Evans. Taken out of context: On measuring situational aware- ness in LLMs, September 2023b. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00667. arXiv:2309.00667 · arXiv
  6. Collin Burns, Pavel Izmailov, Jan Hendrik Kirchner, Bowen Baker, Leo Gao, Leopold Aschen- brenner, Yining Chen, Adrien Ecoffet, Manas Joglekar, Jan Leike, Ilya Sutskever, and Jeff Wu. Weak-to-strong generalization: Eliciting strong capabilities with weak supervision, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09390. · arXiv
  7. Joe Carlsmith. Scheming ais: Will ais fake alignment during training in order to get power?, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08379. · arXiv
  8. Angelica Chen, Jason Phang, Alicia Parrish, Vishakh Padmakumar, Chen Zhao, Samuel R. Bowman, and Kyunghyun Cho. Two failures of self-consistency in the multi-step reasoning of llms, 2024a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14279. · arXiv
  9. Yanda Chen, Chandan Singh, Xiaodong Liu, Simiao Zuo, Bin Yu, He He, and Jianfeng Gao. To- wards Consistent Natural-Language Explanations via Explanation-Consistency Finetuning, Jan- uary 2024b. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13986. arXiv:2401.13986 [cs. · arXiv
  10. Qinyuan Cheng, Tianxiang Sun, Xiangyang Liu, Wenwei Zhang, Zhangyue Yin, Shimin Li, Linyang Li, Zhengfu He, Kai Chen, and Xipeng Qiu. Can AI assistants know what they don't know? In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scar- lett, and Felix Berkenkamp (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 8184-8202. PMLR, 21-27 Jul 2024. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/cheng24i.html.
  11. James Chua, Edward Rees, Hunar Batra, Samuel R. Bowman, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Miles Turpin. Bias-augmented consistency training reduces biased reasoning in chain-of-thought, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05518. · arXiv
  12. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. arXiv:1803.05457v1, 2018. · arXiv
  13. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Zhang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Austen Gregerson, Ava Spataru, Baptiste Roziere, Bethany Biron, Binh Tang, Bobbie Chern, Charlotte Caucheteux, Chaya Nayak, Chloe Bi, Chris Marra, Chris McConnell, Christian Keller, Christophe Touret, Chunyang Wu, Corinne Wong, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Cyrus Nikolaidis, Damien Allonsius, Daniel Song, Danielle Pintz, Danny Livshits, David Esiobu, Dhruv Choudhary, Dhruv Mahajan, Diego Garcia-Olano, Diego Perino, Samvelyan, Mike Clark, Mike Macey, Mike Wang, Miquel Jubert Hermoso, Mo Metanat, Mo- hammad Rastegari, Munish Bansal, Nandhini Santhanam, Natascha Parks, Natasha White, Navy- ata Bawa, Nayan Singhal, Nick Egebo, Nicolas Usunier, Nikolay Pavlovich Laptev, Ning Dong, Ning Zhang, Norman Cheng, Oleg Chernoguz, Olivia Hart, Omkar Salpekar, Ozlem Kalinli, Parkin Kent, Parth Parekh, Paul Saab, Pavan Balaji, Pedro Rittner, Philip Bontrager, Pierre Roux, Piotr Dollar, Polina Zvyagina, Prashant Ratanchandani, Pritish Yuvraj, Qian Liang, Rachad Alao, Rachel Rodriguez, Rafi Ayub, Raghotham Murthy, Raghu Nayani, Rahul Mitra, Raymond Li, Rebekkah Hogan, Robin Battey, Rocky Wang, Rohan Maheswari, Russ Howes, Ruty Rinott, Sai Jayesh Bondu, Samyak Datta, Sara Chugh, Sara Hunt, Sargun Dhillon, Sasha Sidorov, Sa- tadru Pan, Saurabh Verma, Seiji Yamamoto, Sharadh Ramaswamy, Shaun Lindsay, Shaun Lind- say, Sheng Feng, Shenghao Lin, Shengxin Cindy Zha, Shiva Shankar, Shuqiang Zhang, Shuqiang Zhang, Sinong Wang, Sneha Agarwal, Soji Sajuyigbe, Soumith Chintala, Stephanie Max, Stephen Chen, Steve Kehoe, Steve Satterfield, Sudarshan Govindaprasad, Sumit Gupta, Sungmin Cho, Sunny Virk, Suraj Subramanian, Sy Choudhury, Sydney Goldman, Tal Remez, Tamar Glaser, Tamara Best, Thilo Kohler, Thomas Robinson, Tianhe Li, Tianjun Zhang, Tim Matthews, Tim- othy Chou, Tzook Shaked, Varun Vontimitta, Victoria Ajayi, Victoria Montanez, Vijai Mohan, Vinay Satish Kumar, Vishal Mangla, Vítor Albiero, Vlad Ionescu, Vlad Poenaru, Vlad Tiberiu Mihailescu, Vladimir Ivanov, Wei Li, Wenchen Wang, Wenwen Jiang, Wes Bouaziz, Will Con- stable, Xiaocheng Tang, Xiaofang Wang, Xiaojian Wu, Xiaolan Wang, Xide Xia, Xilun Wu, Xinbo Gao, Yanjun Chen, Ye Hu, Ye Jia, Ye Qi, Yenda Li, Yilin Zhang, Ying Zhang, Yossi Adi, Youngjin Nam, Yu, Wang, Yuchen Hao, Yundi Qian, Yuzi He, Zach Rait, Zachary DeVito, Zef Rosnbrick, Zhaoduo Wen, Zhenyu Yang, and Zhiwei Zhao. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783. · arXiv
  14. Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. Measuring and improving consistency in pretrained language mod- els, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01017. · arXiv
  15. Owain Evans, Owen Cotton-Barratt, Lukas Finnveden, Adam Bales, Avital Balwit, Peter Wills, Luca Righetti, and William Saunders. Truthful ai: Developing and governing ai that does not lie, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06674. · arXiv
  16. Lukas Fluri, Daniel Paleka, and Florian Tramèr. Evaluating superhuman models with consistency checks. In 2024 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML), pp. 194-232. IEEE, 2024.
  17. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021.
  18. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, 2021. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685.
  19. Myeongjun Jang, Deuk Sin Kwon, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. Accurate, yet inconsistent? consis- tency analysis on language understanding models, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108. 06665.
  20. Daniel D. Johnson, Daniel Tarlow, David Duvenaud, and Chris J. Maddison. Experts Don't Cheat: Learning What You Don't Know By Predicting Pairs, February 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2402.08733. arXiv:2402.08733 [cs. · arXiv
  21. Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, Scott Johnston, Sheer El-Showk, Andy Jones, Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Anna Chen, Yuntao Bai, Sam Bowman, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Danny Hernandez, Josh Jacobson, Jackson Kernion, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Kamal Ndousse, Catherine Olsson, Sam Ringer, Dario Amodei, Tom Brown, Jack Clark, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Sam McCandlish, Chris Olah, and Jared Kaplan. Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know, November 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221. arXiv:2207.05221 [cs. · arXiv
  22. Rudolf Laine, Bilal Chughtai, Jan Betley, Kaivalya Hariharan, Jeremy Scheurer, Mikita Balesni, Marius Hobbhahn, Alexander Meinke, and Owain Evans. Me, myself, and ai: The situational awareness dataset (sad) for llms, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04694. · arXiv
  23. Tamera Lanham, Anna Chen, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Benoit Steiner, Carson Denison, Danny Her- nandez, Dustin Li, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, Jackson Kernion, Kamilė Lukošiūtė, Karina Nguyen, Newton Cheng, Nicholas Joseph, Nicholas Schiefer, Oliver Rausch, Robin Larson, Sam McCandlish, Sandipan Kundu, Saurav Kadavath, Shannon Yang, Thomas Henighan, Tim- othy Maxwell, Timothy Telleen-Lawton, Tristan Hume, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Jared Kaplan, Jan Brauner, Samuel R. Bowman, and Ethan Perez. Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought rea- soning, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.13702. · arXiv
  24. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words, 2022a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334. · arXiv
  25. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words, June 2022b. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14334. arXiv:2205.14334 [cs. · arXiv
  26. Aleksandar Makelov, George Lange, and Neel Nanda. Towards principled evaluations of sparse au- toencoders for interpretability and control, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08366. · arXiv
  27. Samuel Marks, Can Rager, Eric J. Michaud, Yonatan Belinkov, David Bau, and Aaron Mueller. Sparse feature circuits: Discovering and editing interpretable causal graphs in language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19647. · arXiv
  28. Alexander Meinke and Owain Evans. Tell, don't show: Declarative facts influence how llms gener- alize, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07779. · arXiv
  29. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in gpt. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17359-17372, 2022.
  30. Richard Ngo, Lawrence Chan, and Sören Mindermann. The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00626. · arXiv
  31. OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Valerie Balcom, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Moham- mad Bavarian, Jeff Belgum, Irwan Bello, Jake Berdine, Gabriel Bernadett-Shapiro, Christopher Berner, Lenny Bogdonoff, Oleg Boiko, Madelaine Boyd, Anna-Luisa Brakman, Greg Brockman, Tim Brooks, Miles Brundage, Kevin Button, Trevor Cai, Rosie Campbell, Andrew Cann, Brit- tany Carey, and Chelsea Carlson. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2303.08774.
  32. Lorenzo Pacchiardi, Alex James Chan, Sören Mindermann, Ilan Moscovitz, Alexa Yue Pan, Yarin Gal, Owain Evans, and Jan M Brauner. How to catch an ai liar: Lie detection in black-box llms by asking unrelated questions. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
  33. Arjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, and Shi Feng. Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13076. · arXiv
  34. Ethan Perez and Robert Long. Towards Evaluating AI Systems for Moral Status Using Self-Reports, November 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.08576. arXiv:2311.08576 [cs. · arXiv
  35. Ethan Perez, Sam Ringer, Kamile Lukosiute, Karina Nguyen, Edwin Chen, Scott Heiner, Craig Pettit, Catherine Olsson, Sandipan Kundu, Saurav Kadavath, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Benjamin Mann, Brian Israel, Bryan Seethor, Cameron McKinnon, Christopher Olah, Da Yan, Daniela Amodei, Dario Amodei, Dawn Drain, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Guro Khundadze, Jack- son Kernion, James Landis, Jamie Kerr, Jared Mueller, Jeeyoon Hyun, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, Landon Goldberg, Liane Lovitt, Martin Lucas, Michael Sellitto, Miranda Zhang, Neerav Kingsland, Nelson Elhage, Nicholas Joseph, Noemi Mercado, Nova DasSarma, Oliver Rausch, Robin Larson, Sam McCandlish, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Sheer El Showk, Tamera Lan- ham, Timothy Telleen-Lawton, Tom Brown, Tom Henighan, Tristan Hume, Yuntao Bai, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Jack Clark, Samuel R. Bowman, Amanda Askell, Roger Grosse, Danny Hernan- dez, Deep Ganguli, Evan Hubinger, Nicholas Schiefer, and Jared Kaplan. Discovering language model behaviors with model-written evaluations. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pp. 13387-13434, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.847. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl. 847. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Eric Schwitzgebel. The Unreliability of Naive Introspection. The Philosophical Re- view, 117(2):245-273, April 2008. ISSN 0031-8108, 1558-1470. doi: 10.1215/ 00318108-2007-037. URL https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philosophical-review/ article/117/2/245/2787/The-Unreliability-of-Naive-Introspection. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Eric Schwitzgebel. Introspection. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Ency- clopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2024 edition, 2024.
  38. Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R. Bow- man, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R. Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Tim- othy Maxwell, Sam McCandlish, Kamal Ndousse, Oliver Rausch, Nicholas Schiefer, Da Yan, Miranda Zhang, and Ethan Perez. Towards understanding sycophancy in language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13548. · arXiv
  39. Johannes Treutlein, Dami Choi, Jan Betley, Cem Anil, Samuel Marks, Roger Baker Grosse, and Owain Evans. Connecting the dots: Llms can infer and verbalize latent structure from disparate training data, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14546. · arXiv
  40. Keyon Vafa, Justin Y Chen, Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Ashesh Rambachan. Evalu- ating the world model implicit in a generative model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03689, 2024. · arXiv
  41. Teun van der Weij, Felix Hofstätter, Ollie Jaffe, Samuel F Brown, and Francis Rhys Ward. Ai sandbagging: Language models can strategically underperform on evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07358, 2024. · arXiv
  42. Sohee Yang, Elena Gribovskaya, Nora Kassner, Mor Geva, and Sebastian Riedel. Do large language models latently perform multi-hop reasoning?, 2024a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402. 16837.
  43. Sohee Yang, Elena Gribovskaya, Nora Kassner, Mor Geva, and Sebastian Riedel. Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning? In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 10210-10229, Bangkok, Thailand, 2024b. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.550. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.550. · DOI
  44. Yuqing Yang, Ethan Chern, Xipeng Qiu, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. Alignment for honesty, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07000. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Binder, F. J., Chua, J., Korbak, T., Sleight, H., Hughes, J., Long, R., Perez, E., Turpin, M., & Evans, O.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
ORCID
Binder, Felix J
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2410.13787
arXiv
2410.13787
OpenAlex
W4403580095
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
self-reflection, large language models, self-prediction, model interpretability, fine-tuning, GPT-4, Llama 3, GPT-4o, out-of-distribution generalization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review