PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Can LLMs Predict Their Own Failures? Self-Awareness via Internal Circuits

Open access
Ghasemabadi, Amirhosein, Niu, Di·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) generate fluent and complex outputs but often fail to recognize their own mistakes and hallucinations. Existing approaches typically rely on external judges, multi-sample consistency, or text-based self-critique, which incur additional compute or correlate weakly with true correctness. We ask: can LLMs predict their own failures by inspecting internal states during inference? We introduce Gnosis, a lightweight self-awareness mechanism that enables frozen LLMs to perform intrinsic self-verification by decoding signals from hidden states and attention patterns. Gnosis passively observes internal traces, compresses them into fixed-budget descriptors, and predicts correctness with negligible inference cost, adding only ~5M parameters and operating independently of sequence length. Across math reasoning, open-domain question answering, and academic knowledge benchmarks, and over frozen backbones ranging from 1.7B to 20B parameters, Gnosis consistently outperforms strong internal baselines and large external judges in both accuracy and calibration. Moreover, it generalizes zero-shot to partial generations, enabling early detection of failing trajectories and compute-aware control. These results show that reliable correctness cues are intrinsic to generation process and can be extracted efficiently without external supervision.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2512.20578

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Raw trajectories of interaction inevitably conflate successful sequences with hallucinations, errors in logic, and invalid attempts.

    “Raw trajectories of interaction inevitably conflate successful sequences with hallucinations, errors in logic, and attempts that are invalid (Zhang et al., 2023a; Ghasemabadi and Niu, 2025; Zhang et al., 2025g).”

    From From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms (2026) · cites this paper as Ghasemabadi and Niu, 2025

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghasemabadi, A., & Niu, D.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7117255712
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
failure prediction, hallucination detection, attention patterns, self-verification, calibration, zero-shot generalization, gnosis

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