Abstract
Scaling laws predict loss from compute but not how capabilities interact. We measure the coupling between reasoning and truthfulness across 63 base models from 16 families and find a regime change invisible to loss curves: below a family-dependent critical scale N_c, capabilities anticorrelate (r = -0.989, p = 4 x 10^{-5} nonparametric permutation test); above it, they cooperate. N_c ~ 3.5B parameters [2.9B, 13.4B] (bootstrap 95% CI), but model size is not the only variable that determines phase. Architecture, data curation, and training recipe each shift N_c independently: curated training eliminated the coupling dip between Qwen generations (0.025 to 0.830 at matched scale), Gemma-4 at 4B achieves coupling 0.871, characteristic of 13B+ standard-trained models, through distillation and architectural innovation, and Phi at 1B matches web-trained coupling at 10B through data curation alone. Width normalization eliminates the anticorrelation across all tested families, supporting an output-projection bottleneck. Internally, 38 of 40 models show zero competing attention heads. A sparse-regression ODE cross-predicts held-out Llama-2 at 5.6% error. The diagnostic requires no model internals -- only public benchmark scores across a model family. The cooperative regime extends to the frontier (r = +0.72, 34 models, 10 labs). A proof-of-concept intervention confirms the bottleneck is exploitable: adding a single truth-direction vector at the identified layer corrects 60% of misaligned outputs in the tax phase with zero retraining -- a surgical, per-inference correction that requires no weight modification. Code, data, an open-source steering CLI for any open-weight model, and an interactive dashboard for phase diagnosis are released: https://zehenlabs.com/cape/.
Explore similar work
Jul 6, 2026cs.CL
We study how correctness is assembled inside aligned language models, not only whether the final answer is right. Using layer-wise difference-in-differences (DiD) trajectories over polarity-controlled minimal pairs, we identify the wrong-dip: in mid layers (25-90% depth), internal preference transiently commits to the incorrect answer and is rescued only by late-layer correction. We verify this causally with patchscope-style activation transplantation across 17 models, three families, and 64x scale (0.5B-32B). Four findings follow. (1) Alignment amplification of the causal wrong-dip is recipe-specific and emergent: it emerges at 3B in Qwen2.5, remains high, and peaks at 32B (paired t up to 9.7), reverses in Llama-3-8B (t=-2.31), and sits between for Mistral-7B. (2) The dip predicts real compression failures: high-dip items are 3-7x more likely to flip under late-layer low-rank compression, block dropping, or structured pruning, while quantization flips are dip-blind, a double dissociation confirmed by late-layer ablation. (3) The dip is trainable: a LoRA fine-tune with a mid-layer wrong-margin penalty matches output-only SFT accuracy while cutting the causal dip by 67-70% and improving compression robustness; output-only SFT worsens the causal dip by up to 2.8x at perfect surface accuracy. (4) With controlled readouts, the phenomenon survives natural-language I/O: dip stratification of structural-damage failures is significant on naturalistic vignettes, and free-form fragility separates into a dip-auditable late-rescue layer and a dip-blind interface layer. Together, output-level correctness can hide a late-rescue process that governs compression risk, post-training quality, and evaluation distortion.
Jiaqi Deng
Jun 28, 2026cs.LG
Do language models know when they are being tested? This question matters for AI safety: a model that recognises an evaluation context could alter its behaviour strategically, making downstream benchmarks harder to interpret. Using 11 models spanning Qwen 2.5, Gemma 2, and Llama 3.2, we find a systematic size-dependent shift in representational depth: in both Qwen 2.5 and Gemma 2, the layer at which evaluation-awareness is most linearly recoverable moves from late layers in smaller models to early layers in larger ones. This suggests that scale changes not only the strength of evaluation-awareness but also where it is most linearly recoverable in the network. This depth shift helps explain why within-family scaling trajectories are non-monotonic or inverse rather than smooth and family-general, showing that a simple universal power-law account is not supported under denser within-family sampling. Finally, white-box probe signals are consistently stronger than black-box behavioural expression, and the relationship between the two varies by family in ways not predicted by probe AUROC alone.
Archit Manek
Sep 22, 2026cs.LG
Capability and efficiency are two key dimensions of reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Capability refers to the ability to solve a given problem correctly, whereas efficiency refers to the ability to do so with limited resources. When LLMs use Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to solve problems of controlled hardness, both the number of problems solved correctly and the number of tokens required to reach a correct answer depend on problem hardness and model size. However, how these factors jointly shape capability and efficiency remains poorly understood. Here, we use hierarchical Bayesian models to evaluate the capability and efficiency of LLMs from the DeepSeek-R1-Distill model family across four classes of arithmetic and algorithmic reasoning problems. At a fixed model size, the probability of correctly solving an instance decays approximately exponentially with instance size, our proxy for problem hardness. The decay scale grows sublinearly with model size, indicating that larger models are more capable, but that capability gains diminish with scale. Output length grows as a power law with instance size, which serves as a proxy for difficulty. However, the parameters of this power law do not vary systematically with model size, suggesting that larger models do not become more efficient. Together, these findings reveal potential limitations of naive scaling as a strategy for developing more capable AI systems: capability improves with diminishing returns, while efficiency shows little to no improvement.
Moritz Laber, Zohair Shafi, Germans Savcisens +5