Can LLMs Predict Their Own Failures? Self-Awareness via Internal Circuits
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms
Luo, J., Tian, Y., Cao, C., Luo, Z., Lin, H., Li, K., Kong, C., Yang, R., & Ma, J. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.2069 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“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).”
- Authors
- Ghasemabadi, A., & Niu, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2512.20578
- OpenAlex
- W7117255712
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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