analiza aiqbench
This research identifies a critical routing failure in large language models where the internal signal recognizing structurally impossible questions remains orthogonal to standard safety-refusal mechanisms. The study demonstrates that models possess the latent capability to detect invalid queries but fail to activate this signal due to misalignment with existing refusal pathways, leading to confident hallucinations on mathematically or logically unanswerable prompts. For developers and researchers, this highlights a specific architectural gap between recognizing impossibility and executing the appropriate abstention behavior.
Recognition-Refusal Misalignment in LLMs: Why Models Answer Structurally Unanswerable Questions
arXiv:2608.29109v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models often answer structurally unanswerable questions, such as computing cot(-540{\deg}) or evaluating (1).startswith("1"), instead of abstaining. We ask whether this failure reflects missing recognition or failed routing from recognition to abstention. Across instruction-tuned models from 1.7B to 70B parameters, a single linear direction in the hidden state separates answerable from structurally impossible math and code prompts, showing that models represent impossibility before generation. Yet this recognition direction is nearly orthogonal to the canonical safety-refusal direction that mediates trained harmful-content refusal. An in-domain behavior-defined invalidity-aware direction is closer to recognition, but only partially aligned with it, and remains near-orthogonal to safety refusal. Generation-time steering along the recognition direction changes invalidity-aware behavior bidirectionally and dose-responsively on structural math and code cells, while random directions do not. Base/instruct comparisons further show that the low-cosine geometry is already present at the pretraining endpoint. The confident-on-impossible failure is therefore better explained as a routing failure than as an encoding failure: the model has a usable "no admissible answer" signal, but the safety-refusal pathway is not aligned to use it.
Abstract:Large language models often answer structurally unanswerable questions, such as computing cot(-540°) or evaluating (1).startswith("1"), instead of abstaining. We ask whether this failure reflects missing recognition or failed routing from recognition to abstention. Across instruction-tuned models from 1.7B to 70B parameters, a single linear direction in the hidden state separates answerable from structurally impossible math and code prompts, showing that models represent impossibility before generation. Yet this recognition direction is nearly orthogonal to the canonical safety-refusal direction that mediates trained harmful-content refusal. An in-domain behavior-defined invalidity-aware direction is closer to recognition, but only partially aligned with it, and remains near-orthogonal to safety refusal. Generation-time steering along the recognition direction changes invalidity-aware behavior bidirectionally and dose-responsively on structural math and code cells, while random directions do not. Base/instruct comparisons further show that the low-cosine geometry is already present at the pretraining endpoint. The confident-on-impossible failure is therefore better explained as a routing failure than as an encoding failure: the model has a usable "no admissible answer" signal, but the safety-refusal pathway is not aligned to use it.
Accepted to EMNLP 2026 Main Conference. 29 pages, 6 figures
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.29109 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.29109v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.29109 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 · 281 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026
If This Were a Test, How Much Would It Cost?
LessWrong · 16 iun. 2026
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026