Introspection Fine-Tuning (IFT): Training Small LLMs to Introspect

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14111v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 05:30:26 GMT
• Title: Introspection Fine-Tuning (IFT): Training Small LLMs to Introspect
• Abstract summary: We investigate whether small language models can detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations.<n>We first show that the binary detection paradigm used in prior work is confounded in small models, as steering biases the model toward affirmative responses regardless of the question content.<n>We then introduce emphIntrospection Fine-Tuning (IFT), supervised fine-tuning on sentence-localization examples constructed from the model's own perturbed forward passes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Can small language models detect and report on perturbations their own internal activations? We investigate this question through the lens of activation steering: injecting concept vectors into a model's residual stream and measuring whether the model can accurately report on the perturbation. We first show that the binary detection paradigm used in prior work -- prompting the model to answer Yes'' or No'' to whether it detects an injected thought -- is confounded in small models, as steering biases the model toward affirmative responses regardless of the question content. We therefore propose two confound-free evaluation paradigms: sentence localization (identifying which of $N$ sentences was perturbed, chance $= 1/N$) and strength comparison (identifying which of two sentences received a stronger injection, chance $= 50\%$). Evaluating across six models from two families (Llama-3.2 and Gemma-4), we find that models as small as 2B parameters introspect reliably well above chance, and that introspective ability generally increases with scale. Llama-1B, however, performs at or below chance. We then introduce \emph{Introspection Fine-Tuning} (IFT): supervised fine-tuning on sentence-localization examples constructed from the model's own perturbed forward passes. IFT raises Llama-1B sentence-localization accuracy from $9.6\%$ to $60.6\%$ (a $6\times$ improvement), with gains generalizing zero-shot to the held-out strength-comparison task ($30.2\% \to 52.2\%$). IFT also improves introspection for 3B and 8B models, while inducing negligible degradation on standard capability benchmarks. Our results suggest that introspective ability is not fixed by scale alone: it can be directly trained, and doing so unlocks latent self-monitoring capacity with implications for AI transparency and alignment. Our code is \href{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/IFT-introspection-2092/README.md}{here}.

Related papers

• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• Measuring and Improving Behavioral Consistency in Large Language Models through Fact-Heuristic-Emotion State Enforcement [4.226475360842309]
  Large language models (LLMs) can give different answers to the same decision problem across runs, and reverse a decision when their own prior answer returns as context.<n>We ask whether this instability can be measured and partially reduced without changing model weights.<n>We test the Cognitive Kernel Model (CKM), a prompt-level state-enforcement layer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T12:36:36Z)
• The Geometry of Forgetting: Temporal Knowledge Drift as an Independent Axis in LLM Representations [50.43168858368539]
  Large language models confidently produce outdated answers, and no existing method can detect them.<n>We show this is not an engineering failure but a structural one: temporal drift is encoded as a direction in the residual stream geometrically to both correctness and uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-09T22:27:31Z)
• The Surprising Universality of LLM Outputs: A Real-Time Verification Primitive [0.0]
  CPU-only scoring primitive runs at 2.6 microseconds per token.<n> token rank-frequency distributions converge to the same two- parameter Mandelbrot ranking distribution.<n>We derive a single-pass scoring primitive that composes with model log probabilities when available and degrades to a rank-only mode usable on closed APIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T13:35:31Z)
• Beyond the Assistant Turn: User Turn Generation as a Probe of Interaction Awareness in Language Models [3.9351446512514947]
  We show that user-turn generation captures a dimension of LLM behavior, interaction awareness, that is unexplored and invisible with current assistant-only benchmarks.<n>Our results show that user-turn generation captures a dimension of LLM behavior, interaction awareness, that is unexplored and invisible with current assistant-only benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T17:57:29Z)
• Epistemic Observability in Language Models [0.0]
  We find that models report highest confidence precisely when they are fabricating.<n>We prove, under formal assumptions, that this is not a capability gap but an observational one.<n>We construct a tensor interface that escapes the impossibility by exporting computational byproducts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T21:59:34Z)
• RefineBench: Evaluating Refinement Capability of Language Models via Checklists [71.02281792867531]
  We evaluate two refinement modes: guided refinement and self-refinement.<n>In guided refinement, both proprietary LMs and large open-weight LMs can leverage targeted feedback to refine responses to near-perfect levels within five turns.<n>These findings suggest that frontier LMs require breakthroughs to self-refine their incorrect responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:20:52Z)
• Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable yet Noisy Rewards under Imperfect Verifiers [90.50039419576807]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) trains policies against automated verifiers to avoid costly human labeling.<n>To reduce vulnerability to verifier hacking, many RLVR systems collapse rewards to binary $0,1$ during training.<n>This choice carries a cost: it introduces textitfalse negatives (rejecting correct answers, FNs) and textitfalse positives (accepting incorrect ones, FPs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:56:44Z)
• R1-Zero's "Aha Moment" in Visual Reasoning on a 2B Non-SFT Model [70.77691645678804]
  We present the first successful replication of emergent characteristics for multimodal reasoning on only a non-SFT 2B model.<n>Our model achieves 59.47% accuracy on CVBench, outperforming the base model by approximately 30% and exceeding both SFT setting by 2%.<n>In addition, we share our failed attempts and insights in attempting to achieve R1-like reasoning using RL with instruct models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T04:21:47Z)
• S$^2$R: Teaching LLMs to Self-verify and Self-correct via Reinforcement Learning [51.84977135926156]
  We introduce S$2$R, an efficient framework that enhances LLM reasoning by teaching models to self-verify and self-correct during inference.<n>Our results demonstrate that Qwen2.5-math-7B achieves an accuracy improvement from 51.0% to 81.6%, outperforming models trained on an equivalent amount of long-CoT distilled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T13:40:22Z)
• Language Model Probabilities are Not Calibrated in Numeric Contexts [16.17638166383352]
  We argue that language model (LM) outputs should capture natural distributions.<n>Our work specifically tests whether LM output probabilities are calibrated to numeric information within their textual contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T13:41:15Z)
• Language models scale reliably with over-training and on downstream tasks [121.69867718185125]
  Scaling laws are useful guides for derisking expensive training runs. However, there remain gaps between current studies and how language models are trained. In contrast, scaling laws mostly predict loss on inference, but models are usually compared on downstream task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T13:54:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.