Explanatory Engagement Under Rare Anomalous Failure: Asymptotic Rarity in Model Behavior (or: The Asymptotic AI)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13063v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 10:25:40 GMT
• Title: Explanatory Engagement Under Rare Anomalous Failure: Asymptotic Rarity in Model Behavior (or: The Asymptotic AI)
• Abstract summary: We build a local, zero-cost harness on three open-weight models (qwen3:8b, llama3.1:8b, mistral:7b) running a repeated tool-call task.<n>We hypothesized a rise in engagement as failures grew rarer, then a collapse near a detectability threshold.<n>A companion guaranteed-failure run shows models differ in whether they recognize an anomaly, distinct from engagement once recognized.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Prior work on LLM behavior under anomalous conditions asks whether a model notices anomalies. We ask a narrower question: once a model sits in a workflow with a low, controllable failure rate, does its explanatory engagement - length, specificity, self-reported confidence - change as failure grows asymptotically rarer? We built a local, zero-cost harness on three open-weight models (qwen3:8b, llama3.1:8b, mistral:7b) running a repeated tool-call task where one call fails at probability p, swept across eight rates from 0.2 to 0.0001, under five elicitation conditions from immediate prompting to none. We hypothesized a rise in engagement as failures grew rarer, then a collapse near a detectability threshold. Pooled across conditions this appeared false: length fell in a flat, monotonic pattern. Splitting by condition overturned that. Under immediate_forced, where the model must explain every failure instantly, the predicted rise is confirmed but followed by a plateau, not a collapse: length peaks at 28.4 words at p=0.05, settles to 17.4-19.0 words at the rarest rates, and confidence rises unevenly from about 53% to the 70s-90s. Under grouped_runs, explanation batched to run-end, no collapse appears. Under passive_unprompted, aggregate magnitude is a floor artifact, but a recovered logging gap revealed real, model-specific self-monitoring: llama3.1:8b volunteers structured confidence reports unprompted, sometimes eroding its own confidence as trials accumulate; the other two do so only once, as boilerplate. Elicitation structure is a first-class moderator of collapse observability. A companion guaranteed-failure run (72 cells, backfilling rates where random sampling gave zero real failures) shows models differ in whether they recognize an anomaly, distinct from engagement once recognized. Limitation: discrete rate points cannot capture behavior between them, a direction for future work.

Related papers

• A Fragility Spectrum for Recursive Language-Model Training [9.563027159959587]
  We show that different models behave very differently under the same process.<n>The unique 4-gram outcome after five generations ranges from 0.187 to 0.940 across checkpoints.<n>Changing the composition of the shared pool or mixing in human text keeps the Spearman correlation of the ordering at 0.91--0.97.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T06:56:22Z)
• CAROL: Context-Aware Online Learning for Fuzzer Scheduling [30.06459480586687]
  Ensemble fuzzing runs multiple fuzzers on a target while a scheduler allocates CPU time among them.<n>We introduce CAROL, an online scheduler that uses each fuzzer's current context.<n>CAROL triggers more unique bugs than each of three ensemble-scheduling baselines whenever their results differ, and fewer on none.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-06T18:24:28Z)
• Wrong Prediction, Right Answer: Recovering Evidence from Collapsed LLM Sequence Scores [31.709549159768727]
  We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks.<n> hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses.<n>Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T16:43:55Z)
• A Calibration Audit of Confidence in Feed-Forward 3D Reconstruction [45.496856835431885]
  3D reconstruction models emit per-pixel confidence that downstream systems read as a reliability signal.<n>We score the confidence on four properties, how well it ranks error, whether its level is right on average, whether it holds across the confidence range, and whether its intervals cover the truth.<n>The confidence ranks error well, but the predicted uncertainty is too low when it is read under conditions that are not exactly those of training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T10:21:34Z)
• Agent Behavioral Contracts II: Certifying Compositional Reliability Without Assuming Independence [0.0]
  Two instances of one model, in a two-agent handoff, co-fail on 90.0% of the missions on which either fails.<n>Substituting a different model reduces the association in six of six contrasts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T07:25:05Z)
• Mapping and Measuring the Behavioral Evolution of Large Language Models [28.603443859513153]
  Benchmark leaderboards summarize how well a language model performs, but not how its behavior relates to that of other models or changes across generations.<n>We characterize the output behavior of 32 models from six families using their responses to a shared bank of 10,000 prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T15:07:28Z)
• 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)
• The Low Frequency Trap: Video Language Models Fail at Simple Event Bookkeeping [70.07961857926377]
  We introduce trace-grounded parametric profiling for event counting in three controlled video tasks.<n>Across 2,190 videos, we vary event count N and frequency F while holding rendering fixed.<n>At an 80% reliability threshold, Gemini 3.6 Flash reliably counts persistent state transitions up to 12 events at 0.5 and 1.0 Hz, yet demonstrates no reliable positive-count region for transient blinking events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T17:57:06Z)
• Bayesian Repetition Penalty: A Principled Adjacent-Conditional Framework for Reversing Attention Collapse in Autoregressive Language Models [9.240704665480939]
  We present a principled framework that penalises or compensates anomalous confidence arising from collapsed generation patterns.<n>The resulting self-normalising penalty ratio $R=f(m,n,p)/f(np,n,p)$ requires no ad hoc standardisation and admits a closed-form logit offset with zero approximation error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:01:57Z)
• Self-Compacting Language Model Agents [44.3231488987671]
  SelfCompact is a scaffold that allows the model itself to decide when and how to compact.<n>It elicits effective adaptive compaction without any fine-tuning or external supervision.<n>Our results show that SelfCompact matches or exceeds fixed-interval summarization at a fraction of the token cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T16:08:34Z)
• When Do Autoregressive Sequence Models Forecast Physical Wavefields? A Controlled Study on Synthetic Seismograms [43.8784307709823]
  Long-horizon autoregressive forecasting of physical signals is limited by error accumulation.<n>We ask when such rollout stays stable using synthetic three-component seismograms as a physically structured testbed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T13:46:14Z)
• Trivium: Temporal Regret as a First-Class Objective for Causal-Memory Controllers [0.0]
  We argue that this is a structural problem, not merely a model-capacity one.<n>We propose long-horizon temporal regret as a first-class objective alongside outcome regret and epistemic regret over the working causal model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:06:20Z)
• Disposition Distillation at Small Scale: A Three-Arc Negative Result [0.0]
  Internal draft reported +33.9-point MCAS and +15.3-point HumanEval gains on a Qwen3-0.6B student; a second-pass sanity check falsified both numbers before publication.<n>We find no operator that moves judge-measured disposition without damaging content or collapsing into stylistic mimicry.<n>We contribute a three-arc negative result with mechanism, a two-failure-mode taxonomy for linear h_last probes, and an honest falsification pipeline that converts the class of false positives we ourselves produced into publishable negatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T17:40:31Z)
• IMPACT: Influence Modeling for Open-Set Time Series Anomaly Detection [41.04237014380757]
  Open-set anomaly detection (OSAD) is an emerging paradigm designed to utilize limited labeled data from anomaly classes seen in training to identify both seen and unseen anomalies during testing.<n>Current approaches rely on simple augmentation methods to generate pseudo anomalies that replicate unseen anomalies.<n>This work introduces $textbfi$nfluence $underlinetextbfm$odeling for o$underlinetextbfp$en-set time series.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T02:49:46Z)
• Causal Understanding by LLMs: The Role of Uncertainty [43.87879175532034]
  Recent papers show LLMs achieve near-random accuracy in causal relation classification.<n>We investigate whether pretraining exposure to causal examples improves causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T13:06:35Z)

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.