Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research investigates the internal mechanisms of retrieval-augmented language models, specifically distinguishing between hidden states that predict source reliance and those that can actively control it. By utilizing Latent Trajectory Shift analysis, the study reveals a critical separation where diagnostic representations do not necessarily align with effective intervention directions for managing knowledge conflicts. This insight is vital for improving the reliability and interpretability of RAG systems in high-stakes applications.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

The Attribution Blind Spot: Layerwise Trajectory Diagnostics for Source Reliance in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.09493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A retrieval-augmented model can match a document without relying on it. Controlled knowledge conflicts make source choice observable and let us ask a second question that prediction alone cannot answer: which internal-state properties define useful intervention directions? We study paired hidden-state changes with Latent Trajectory Shift (LTS), a signed projection onto a training-fitted first principal component (PC1), and keep verified training exposure separate from behavioral source choice. Across the evaluated conflicts, state-change magnitude is often the stronger predictor, whereas signed PC1 is the stronger selective controller: equal-norm interventions change source preference while better preserving non-target behavior, and the frozen direction transfers across the tested datasets and aligned model pairs. A same-system OLMo study further combines positive choice and control results with inconclusive exposure detection at the achieved power. The central result is a separation: representations that diagnose what a model will choose need not be the representations that best control that choice.

Abstract:A retrieval-augmented model can match a document without relying on it. Controlled knowledge conflicts make source choice observable and let us ask a second question that prediction alone cannot answer: which internal-state properties define useful intervention directions? We study paired hidden-state changes with Latent Trajectory Shift (LTS), a signed projection onto a training-fitted first principal component (PC1), and keep verified training exposure separate from behavioral source choice. Across the evaluated conflicts, state-change magnitude is often the stronger predictor, whereas signed PC1 is the stronger selective controller: equal-norm interventions change source preference while better preserving non-target behavior, and the frozen direction transfers across the tested datasets and aligned model pairs. A same-system OLMo study further combines positive choice and control results with inconclusive exposure detection at the achieved power. The central result is a separation: representations that diagnose what a model will choose need not be the representations that best control that choice.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.09493 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.09493v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09493 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 · 246 words

Related coverage