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

Sam Mao

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

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

Rationales Counterfactual Explanation Empirical Study

Ask PDF

Jun 8, 2026cs.LG

Measurement Under Selection: Decoy-Calibrated Failure Audits for Language Models

Knowing how often a language model fails does not explain where its errors concentrate. When auditors examine many explanations, the strongest observed pattern may arise by chance. We introduce Janus, a procedure for checking proposed error patterns before reporting them. Janus starts with a fixed list of yes/no properties of the examples being evaluated, such as whether the input is long. For each property, it compares the model's error rates on examples with that property and those without it. To see how large a difference can arise by chance, it repeats this calculation after shuffling the yes/no labels across examples without changing the group sizes. These shuffled properties are called decoys. A pattern is reported only if the size of its error difference meets a threshold set using decoys. On separate held-out examples, the same group must still have the higher error rate and the difference must meet a minimum, which was chosen in advance. In a controlled experiment, where the model must find a code in documents containing tables of staff, projects, and renewal codes, Janus confirms five related patterns of higher error rates on tasks requiring more lookups across tables. It also confirms a sixth pattern: lower error rates on examples with the needed information at the ends of the tables. In our samples from the MuSiQue and LongBench v2 public benchmarks, SliceLine finds groups with high error rates, while Janus reports no confirmed error patterns for the example properties we chose to test. For comparison, we use standard tests that shuffle errors and account for testing many candidates. With the same holdout check, they confirm two to six controlled patterns, depending on the test and threshold, and none on either benchmark. In simulations with no real error patterns, Janus reports false patterns more often than Benjamini-Hochberg, depending on the decoy count.

Vyzantinos Repantis, Ameya Gawde, Harshvardhan Singh

Algorithm Auditing Equal Error Rate

Ask PDF

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

Reasoning Failures Large Language Model Reasoning Reasoning Traces Token-Level Uncertainty Self-Consistency

Ask PDF