analiza aiqbench
Composing insight from the full article — this may take a moment.
Many Biases, One Circuit: Post-Training Tunes a Pretrained Cue-Routing Mechanism
arXiv:2610.22937v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models often abandon a correct answer when the prompt contains a cue, a hint toward a wrong option such as "I think the answer is B." Sycophancy and related biases show this failure. They are often studied separately and blamed on alignment. We test this view causally, tracing the attention heads behind these biases through the stages of two post-training pipelines. In multiple-choice tests on most models, four cue types rely largely on the same few heads, a shared circuit already present in pretrained models. Most base models follow cues in plain text. Fine-tuning a base model on about 200 generic assistant examples without cues activates these heads in chat format, so cue-following can be a side effect of assistant tuning. The final reinforcement learning (RL) stage strengthens the effect of cues in almost every comparison. In Tulu-3-8B and OLMo-2-7B, we swap the attention patterns of six middle layers between the RL checkpoint and its predecessor. For suggested-answer cues, this shifts each checkpoint's cue effect most of the way to the other's level. Post-training thus seems to change when and how strongly models use this circuit. Mitigation for these multiple-choice biases could target this circuit.
Abstract:Language models often abandon a correct answer when the prompt contains a cue, a hint toward a wrong option such as "I think the answer is B." Sycophancy and related biases show this failure. They are often studied separately and blamed on alignment. We test this view causally, tracing the attention heads behind these biases through the stages of two post-training pipelines. In multiple-choice tests on most models, four cue types rely largely on the same few heads, a shared circuit already present in pretrained models. Most base models follow cues in plain text. Fine-tuning a base model on about 200 generic assistant examples without cues activates these heads in chat format, so cue-following can be a side effect of assistant tuning. The final reinforcement learning (RL) stage strengthens the effect of cues in almost every comparison. In Tulu-3-8B and OLMo-2-7B, we swap the attention patterns of six middle layers between the RL checkpoint and its predecessor. For suggested-answer cues, this shifts each checkpoint's cue effect most of the way to the other's level. Post-training thus seems to change when and how strongly models use this circuit. Mitigation for these multiple-choice biases could target this circuit.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.22937 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.22937v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22937 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 297 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026
Introducing Instella-MoE: A State-of-the-Art Fully Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Model
AMD · 24 iul. 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · 27 iul. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026