aiqbench analysis
This study provides mechanistic evidence that post-training fundamentally alters how large language models process repeated information, shifting them from automatic to controlled processing patterns distinct from both base models and human cognition. The findings highlight a qualitative divergence in model behavior as scale increases within families like Qwen 2.5, offering critical insights into the cognitive architecture changes induced by alignment techniques rather than just performance metrics.
Automatic or Controlled? Repetition Priming Reveals Divergent Processing in Base LLMs, Instruct LLMs, and Humans
arXiv:2608.14681v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Words recur constantly in natural language use, yet it remains unclear whether language models reactivate prior representations or re-evaluate repeated words afresh, and whether post-training changes this default behavior. We apply repetition priming (Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977) to 15 models across five model families (1.5B-14B parameters) in two tasks, semantic categorization and cloze completion, with matched human experiments using identical stimuli. We find that base models exhibit automatic processing: they show immediate facilitation that remains stable across lags, partially survives context removal, and correlates with attention to prior occurrences. Instruct models exhibit controlled processing: their facilitation decays with lag, collapses without expected context, and reverses to interference at larger scales. Within the Qwen 2.5 family, this dissociation increases monotonically with model scale, suggesting that post-training progressively alters repetition processing. Humans show a hybrid profile, with lag-sensitive facilitation resembling instruct models but without interference, suggesting that neither model type fully captures human cognition. Our findings reveal a qualitative shift in how language models process repeated information after post-training and provide mechanistic evidence for the divergence between model behaviors.
Title:Automatic or Controlled? Repetition Priming Reveals Divergent Processing in Base LLMs, Instruct LLMs, and Humans
Abstract:Words recur constantly in natural language use, yet it remains unclear whether language models reactivate prior representations or re-evaluate repeated words afresh, and whether post-training changes this default behavior. We apply repetition priming (Shiffrin and Schneider, 1977) to 15 models across five model families (1.5B-14B parameters) in two tasks, semantic categorization and cloze completion, with matched human experiments using identical stimuli. We find that base models exhibit automatic processing: they show immediate facilitation that remains stable across lags, partially survives context removal, and correlates with attention to prior occurrences. Instruct models exhibit controlled processing: their facilitation decays with lag, collapses without expected context, and reverses to interference at larger scales. Within the Qwen 2.5 family, this dissociation increases monotonically with model scale, suggesting that post-training progressively alters repetition processing. Humans show a hybrid profile, with lag-sensitive facilitation resembling instruct models but without interference, suggesting that neither model type fully captures human cognition. Our findings reveal a qualitative shift in how language models process repeated information after post-training and provide mechanistic evidence for the divergence between model behaviors.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.14681 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.14681v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14681 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 290 words
Related coverage

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026

Article: Governing AI in the Cloud: A Practical Guide for Architects
InfoQ · Jun 15, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026

Hands-free first notice of loss: Using Strands Agents and Amazon Bedrock AgentCore Browser Tool for intelligent claims intake
AWS · Jun 9, 2026