analiza aiqbench
This study rigorously challenges the assumption that routing signals in vision transformers inherently carry error information beyond model outputs, demonstrating that apparent gains are often artifacts of accuracy-based checkpoint selection rather than intrinsic signal. By reconstructing labels from frozen generators and adjusting validation metrics, the authors show that robust uncertainty auditing requires distinct probe fitting and validation protocols to avoid false positives. The findings underscore a critical methodological shift needed in evaluating how routing mechanisms contribute to model reliability and interpretability.
Routing Probes Can Improve Without New Information: An Exact-Null Audit of Uncertainty Beyond Model Outputs
arXiv:2609.38956v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Routing signals of modern vision transformers -- expert gates, attention-residual weights and halting scores -- often improve probes that predict whether the model is correct, and the improvement is commonly read as evidence that routing carries information about errors beyond the model's outputs. We test this inference directly: keeping real output-routing pairs, we redraw correctness labels from a frozen output-only generator fitted on disjoint data, so that routing is uninformative by construction. Under this exact label null, a width-matched MLP comparison still reports a routing gain in 51.3% of confidence-only evaluations (308/600), while a linear comparison reports none. Holding each training trajectory fixed on a six-model panel and selecting the checkpoint by validation log loss instead of validation accuracy removes the detections (50/120 to 0/120, and 83/120 to 0/120 in an independently implemented probe), identifying accuracy-based checkpoint selection as the cause; across all output views the raw detection rate falls from 27.5% (528/1,920) to zero observed detections. The repaired comparison is not sensitive, detecting an implanted signal of about 0.005 nats in 0/20 replicates in each of two matched settings, whereas a conditional permutation test built on an estimated routing law detects it in 11/20 and 10/20 and rejects rarely under the null. On real correctness labels, the conditional analysis yields model-relative evidence in five DeiT attention-residual families; in four it persists under two specified variants of the conditional law, and no family passes an additional noise criterion. Fitting a better probe and testing for incremental information are different problems, and each needs its own validation.
Abstract:Routing signals of modern vision transformers -- expert gates, attention-residual weights and halting scores -- often improve probes that predict whether the model is correct, and the improvement is commonly read as evidence that routing carries information about errors beyond the model's outputs. We test this inference directly: keeping real output-routing pairs, we redraw correctness labels from a frozen output-only generator fitted on disjoint data, so that routing is uninformative by construction. Under this exact label null, a width-matched MLP comparison still reports a routing gain in 51.3% of confidence-only evaluations (308/600), while a linear comparison reports none. Holding each training trajectory fixed on a six-model panel and selecting the checkpoint by validation log loss instead of validation accuracy removes the detections (50/120 to 0/120, and 83/120 to 0/120 in an independently implemented probe), identifying accuracy-based checkpoint selection as the cause; across all output views the raw detection rate falls from 27.5% (528/1,920) to zero observed detections. The repaired comparison is not sensitive, detecting an implanted signal of about 0.005 nats in 0/20 replicates in each of two matched settings, whereas a conditional permutation test built on an estimated routing law detects it in 11/20 and 10/20 and rejects rarely under the null. On real correctness labels, the conditional analysis yields model-relative evidence in five DeiT attention-residual families; in four it persists under two specified variants of the conditional law, and no family passes an additional noise criterion. Fitting a better probe and testing for incremental information are different problems, and each needs its own validation.
Preprint. 44 pages
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.38956 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.38956v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.38956 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 · 353 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Building and evaluating model diffing agents
AI Alignment Forum · 12 iun. 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · 8 oct. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026