cs.AIAug 13, 2026

Explanatory Engagement Under Rare Anomalous Failure: Asymptotic Rarity in Model Behavior (or: The Asymptotic AI)

Authors: Sam Mao

Organizations: New York University | Interactive Media Arts

Abstract

Prior work on LLM behavior under anomalous conditions asks whether a model notices anomalies. We ask a narrower question: once a model sits in a workflow with a low, controllable failure rate, does its explanatory engagement - length, specificity, self-reported confidence - change as failure grows asymptotically rarer? We built a local, zero-cost harness on three open-weight models (qwen3:8b, llama3.1:8b, mistral:7b) running a repeated tool-call task where one call fails at probability p, swept across eight rates from 0.2 to 0.0001, under five elicitation conditions from immediate prompting to none. We hypothesized a rise in engagement as failures grew rarer, then a collapse near a detectability threshold. Pooled across conditions this appeared false: length fell in a flat, monotonic pattern. Splitting by condition overturned that. Under immediate_forced, where the model must explain every failure instantly, the predicted rise is confirmed but followed by a plateau, not a collapse: length peaks at 28.4 words at p=0.05, settles to 17.4-19.0 words at the rarest rates, and confidence rises unevenly from about 53% to the 70s-90s. Under grouped_runs, explanation batched to run-end, no collapse appears. Under passive_unprompted, aggregate magnitude is a floor artifact, but a recovered logging gap revealed real, model-specific self-monitoring: llama3.1:8b volunteers structured confidence reports unprompted, sometimes eroding its own confidence as trials accumulate; the other two do so only once, as boilerplate. Elicitation structure is a first-class moderator of collapse observability. A companion guaranteed-failure run (72 cells, backfilling rates where random sampling gave zero real failures) shows models differ in whether they recognize an anomaly, distinct from engagement once recognized. Limitation: discrete rate points cannot capture behavior between them, a direction for future work.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

An Empirical Study of Counterfactual Self-Explanations in LLMs

Large language models can easily generate explanations for their own outputs, but such self-explanations are not necessarily faithful to the model's behavior. We study this issue through counterfactual self-explanations, where a model minimally edits an input so that its own prediction changes. Across sentiment analysis and natural language inference, we evaluate ten instruction-tuned models from the LLaMA-3 and Qwen-2.5 families, measuring faithfulness, minimality, and alignment with human-annotated rationales. Our results show that model scale is the strongest determinant of explanation quality: larger models are substantially more likely to generate counterfactuals that flip their own predictions and target decision-relevant evidence. In contrast, the rationale-guided condition produces edit-minimal counterfactuals that are also more human-aligned. However, it does not consistently improve faithfulness. Overall, counterfactual self-explanations can provide useful behavioral evidence about model decisions, but their reliability depends strongly on model capacity and should be empirically validated rather than assumed.
Giannis Kalyvas, Giorgos Filandrianos, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis +2
Topic pending
AskPDF
Jun 8, 2026cs.LG

Decoy-Calibrated Failure Audits for Language Models

Useful audits reveal not only how often a model fails, but also where its failures concentrate. An auditor may test many candidate explanations: long inputs, indirect questions, distracting evidence, or combinations of these factors. The risk is selection. The largest observed effect may reflect a real failure mode, or it may simply be the best result among many tried. We introduce Janus, a procedure for deciding when a proposed error explanation is credible enough to report. The goal is not to generate new explanations, but to decide which ones hold up. The auditor starts with a fixed model, a labeled evaluation set, and a frozen list of candidate explanations, which we call descriptors. Janus scores each descriptor by its error-rate lift, then compares real descriptors with fake ones that have the same frequencies but are randomly assigned to examples. A descriptor is confirmed only if it beats this decoy floor on the data used for discovery and then repeats on separate held-out data. In a controlled audit of multi-table lookup tasks, Janus identifies the planted failure, confirming long-chain descriptors and their interactions. The LLM often stops partway through the lookup chain instead of reaching the final answer. On two public benchmarks, MuSiQue and LongBench v2, the SliceLine baseline flags plausible high-error pockets, but Janus confirms none of them. Ablations show why both safeguards matter. On LongBench v2, an uncalibrated fixed threshold reports 20 descriptors, the decoy floor leaves one, and the holdout check rejects the last one after its lift shrinks from 0.36 to 0.05. The resulting principle separates proposing explanations from reporting them. Candidates may come from any source, but only those that beat decoys and replicate on fresh data become audit findings.
Vyzantinos Repantis, Ameya Gawde, Harshvardhan Singh
Algorithm AuditingEqual Error RateMolecular Descriptors
AskPDF
Jun 4, 2026cs.CL

How Language Models Fail: Token-Level Signatures of Committed and Persistent Reasoning Failures

Failures in language model reasoning emerge through distinct processes that leave identifiable signatures in the reasoning trace. We characterize these failures using token-level uncertainty signals, finding they arise through two empirically distinguishable processes. The first is committed failure, in which a model locks onto an incorrect reasoning path early in its trace. A central diagnostic signature is the commitment point, beyond which considering additional tokens hurt rather than help failure detection. In the second, persistent uncertainty, uncertainty instead accumulates throughout, and the full trace is needed to best distinguish failing from successful completions. These signatures reproduce across 23 model-dataset configurations, with the framework's falsifiable predictions holding in 20 of 23 cases, well above chance across both failure modes. Finally, we demonstrate our failure mode framework has direct implications for self-consistency, identifying when uncertainty signals complement it and when it can be selectively skipped. These results offer a foundation for understanding when LLM reasoning failures become detectable and for adapting detection strategies accordingly.
Tanvi Thoria, Kiana Jafari, Marc R. Schlichting +1
LLM Reasoning MethodsReasoning TracesToken-Level Uncertainty
AskPDF