Architecture Determines Observability of Transformers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Autoregressive transformers make confident errors that output-confidence monitoring cannot catch. Activation monitors catch them only when training leaves a decision-quality signal beyond what the output already exposes. This signal is an architectural property of the trained model, fixed upstream of any monitor. Controlling for output confidence removes 60.3% of the raw activation-probe signal on average across 14 models. Raw probe signal is mostly output confidence, and output-side readouts cannot recover the residual. What remains depends on architecture and training. In Pythia's controlled training, both matched-width configurations form the signal early. One preserves it through convergence while another erases it as perplexity continues to improve. Capability and observability are not inherently in tension. Across independently trained families this pattern persists, even as the collapse point shifts. Where the signal survives, monitoring catches what confidence cannot. On downstream QA, a WikiText-trained probe with no task-specific tuning catches about one in eight confident errors that output-confidence monitoring misses, at a 20% flag rate. These results establish signal engineering as a training-time design axis alongside loss and capability. Architecture sets the conditions for observability, and training determines what remains readable.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 43 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Apr 2026.
Builds on
43 of 49 references.
References · 43
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
- 2024Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phonecited by 1,883
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
- 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,686
31 more
- 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
- 2020What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Examscited by 1,324
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
- 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 795
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 787
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 673
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 644
- 2019CodeSearchNet Challenge: Evaluating the State of Semantic Code Searchcited by 638
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
- 2022Confident Adaptive Language Modelingcited by 297
- 2024Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMscited by 246
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 222
- 2025Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 173
- 2025Reasoning Models Know When They're Right: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verificationcited by 154
- 2024Know Your Limits: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Modelscited by 116
- 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 78
- 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 65
- 2025Calibrating Verbal Uncertainty as a Linear Feature to Reduce Hallucinationscited by 48
- 2025Monitoring Monitorabilitycited by 47
- 2026Building Production-Ready Probes For Geminicited by 38
- 2025Language Models Are Capable of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Their Internal Activationscited by 37
- 2025Knowing Before Saying: LLM Representations Encode Information About Chain-of-Thought Success Before Completioncited by 22
- 2025Beyond Linear Probes: Dynamic Safety Monitoring for Language Modelscited by 14
- 2025Neural Chameleons: Language Models Can Learn to Hide Their Thoughts from Unseen Activation Monitorscited by 7
- 2026GAVEL: Towards Rule-Based Safety Through Activation Monitoringcited by 4
- 2026Monitorability as a Free Gift: How RLVR Spontaneously Aligns Reasoningcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.