Spontaneous Context Restoration: How Language Models Recover from Corrupted Inputs

We study a practical question: can a small correction module fix errors in a frozen language model's outputs without degrading its base capabilities? We propose CRN v2, a lightweight logit-level correction module (~34M trainable parameters, 0.73% of the 4.65B text module) that sits atop a fully frozen Gemma 4 E2B model. The base model is never updated; only the correction module learns, via supervised fine-tuning followed by reference-free DPO on 83,400 error-correction pairs. On a 60-question domain exam (CEHRI: Certified Human-Robot Intelligence, covering facts, arithmetic, and implicit-goal reasoning), CRN v2 corrects 53.3% of base-model errors (reworded variant: 43.3%) while showing no degradation on tested capability benchmarks (MMLU/BoolQ N=200; car-wash N=8). A LoRA baseline at the matched CRN v1 budget (6.6M params, rank 19) achieves 83.3% correction but suffers 30-75% capability loss on the same benchmarks -- the correction-capability tradeoff. An ablation shows that the KL preservation term (lambda=0.1) is critical: lowering it to 0.01 degrades correction to 35.0%. A hidden-state injection variant at earlier layers (1.6M params, SFT-only) reaches 50.0%/55.8% but does not exceed logit correction; shallower injection (layer 4) drops to 30.0%/28.3%; multi-depth logit correction (~35M) reaches only 40%; and longer training (5,000 SFT + 2,000 DPO) stays at 53.3% -- none of the alternative configurations we tested exceeded the rank-128 logit result, consistent with a best-achieved result of ~53% rather than a floor. This is a study of a design principle (frozen base + logit correction + KL anchoring), not a claim of architectural novelty. All code, main-result weights, and evaluation scripts are released (deep variant as code only -- no trained deep checkpoints).

Language models encounter typos, corrupted text, altered words, and disrupted token order, yet robustness is usually evaluated only through output behavior. We study how six naturalistic and synthetic input perturbations propagate through decoder-only language models at three levels: output behavior, hidden-state geometry, and attention-head function. We evaluate behavioral effects across four GPT-2 and two Qwen2.5 checkpoints by analyzing layerwise geometry using centered kernel alignment and intrinsic dimension, and examine attention-head responses in GPT-2. Perturbation types produce distinguishable metric profiles that are not fully captured by output measures and are only partly consistent across the tested checkpoints. Copying scores are especially associated with activation-patching recovery under token substitution and shuffling. Gradient-guided HotFlip perturbations also cause stronger behavioral and representational disruption than rate-matched random token substitutions in GPT-2; their behavioral effects are consistent across all six tested checkpoints. Our results show that robustness claims based on a single behavioral or representational metric can be misleading, and motivate multi-level evaluation of how perturbations alter language-model computation.

As large language models (LLMs) grow more capable, they are increasingly deployed in context-rich settings where task inputs are often accompanied by long, partially irrelevant context. In a controlled setting, we find that state-of-the-art models often appear robust to task-irrelevant context at the aggregate level: prepending it to benchmark questions causes little change in overall accuracy. This aggregate stability, however, masks significant per-example instability. Even semantically meaningless pseudo-words, formed by randomly combining characters, can markedly shift model predictions on a small fraction of examples, degrading performance on some while improving it on others. This two-sided effect holds consistently across a wide range of models and datasets, yet the affected examples are largely model-specific. We further show that this instability is modulated by context type, context length, test-time compute, and model development stage. Together, our findings reveal context-induced tail risks concealed by aggregate accuracy, motivating per-example reliability evaluation of language models.