Bertram Højer

Michal Štefánik, Timothee Mickus, Marek Kadlčík et al.

Recent work has shown that different large language models (LLMs) converge to similar and accurate input embedding representations for numbers. These findings conflict with the documented propensity of LLMs to produce erroneous outputs when dealing with numeric information. In this work, we aim to explain this conflict by exploring how language models manipulate numbers and quantify the lower bounds of accuracy of these mechanisms. We find that despite surfacing errors, different language models learn interchangeable representations of numbers that are systematic, highly accurate and universal across their hidden states and the types of input contexts. This allows us to create universal probes for each LLM and to trace information -- including the causes of output errors -- to specific layers. Our results lay a fundamental understanding of how pre-trained LLMs manipulate numbers and outline the potential of more accurate probing techniques in addressed refinements of LLMs' architectures.

Nils Grünefeld, Bertram Højer, Philipp Mondorf et al.

Language model (LM) "reasoning", commonly described as Chain-of-Thought or test-time scaling, often improves benchmark performance, but the dynamics underlying this process remain poorly understood. We study these dynamics through the lens of uncertainty quantification by treating the "reasoning" traces, the intermediate token sequences generated by LMs, as evolving model states. We summarize each trace by an uncertainty trace profile: a small set of features describing the shape of the uncertainty signal over its trace, such as its slope and linearity. We find that across five LMs evaluated on GSM8K and ProntoQA, these profiles predict whether a trace yields a correct final answer with AUROC up to 0.807, improving markedly on recent related work. We reach AUROC 0.801 using only the first few hundred tokens of full traces, suggesting that errors can be detected early in the generation. A detailed comparison of correct and incorrect traces further reveals qualitatively distinct uncertainty profiles, with correct traces showing a steeper and less linear decline in uncertainty. Together, the results suggest that our method, grounded in decision-making under uncertainty, provides a principled lens for studying the generative process underlying LM "reasoning".

Bertram Højer

Language models (LMs) are said to be exhibiting reasoning, but what does this entail? We assess definitions of reasoning and how key papers in the field of natural language processing (NLP) use the notion and argue that the definitions provided are not consistent with how LMs are trained, process information, and generate new tokens. To illustrate this incommensurability we assume the view that transformer-based LMs implement an \textit{implicit} finite-order Markov kernel mapping contexts to conditional token distributions. In this view, reasoning-like outputs correspond to statistical regularities and approximate statistical invariances in the learned kernel rather than the implementation of explicit logical mechanisms. This view is illustrative of the claim that LMs are "statistical pattern matchers"" and not genuine reasoners and provides a perspective that clarifies why reasoning-like outputs arise in LMs without any guarantees of logical consistency. This distinction is fundamental to how epistemic uncertainty is evaluated in LMs. We invite a discussion on the importance of how the computational processes of the systems we build and analyze in NLP research are described.

Bertram Højer, Oliver Jarvis, Stefan Heinrich

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have resulted in increasingly anthropomorphic language concerning the ability of LLMs to reason. Whether reasoning in LLMs should be understood to be inherently different is, however, widely debated. We propose utilizing a representation engineering approach wherein model activations are read from the residual stream of an LLM when processing a reasoning task. The activations are used to derive a control vector that is applied to the model as an inference-time intervention, modulating the representational space of the model, to improve performance on the specified task. We publish the code for deriving control vectors and analyzing model representations. The method allows us to improve performance on reasoning benchmarks and assess how control vectors influence the final logit distribution of a model via metrics such as KL divergence and entropy. We apply control vectors to Mistral-7B-Instruct and a range of Pythia models on an inductive, a deductive and mathematical reasoning task. We show that an LLM can, to a certain degree, be controlled to improve its perceived reasoning ability by modulating activations. The intervention is dependent upon the ability to reliably extract the model's typical state when correctly solving a task. Our results suggest that reasoning performance can be modulated in the same manner as other information-processing tasks performed by LLMs and demonstrate that we are capable of improving performance on specific tasks via a simple intervention on the residual stream with no additional training.

Bertram Højer, Terne Sasha Thorn Jakobsen, Anna Rogers et al.

Despite the widespread use of ''artificial intelligence'' (AI) framing in Natural Language Processing (NLP) research, it is not clear what researchers mean by ''intelligence''. To that end, we present the results of a survey on the notion of ''intelligence'' among researchers and its role in the research agenda. The survey elicited complete responses from 303 researchers from a variety of fields including NLP, Machine Learning (ML), Cognitive Science, Linguistics, and Neuroscience. We identify 3 criteria of intelligence that the community agrees on the most: generalization, adaptability, & reasoning. Our results suggests that the perception of the current NLP systems as ''intelligent'' is a minority position (29%). Furthermore, only 16.2% of the respondents see developing intelligent systems as a research goal, and these respondents are more likely to consider the current systems intelligent.