The Assistant as a Privileged Persona: A canonical reference in cross-persona self-recognition
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context. In a companion paper citepjack2026twomodes we showed they can also recognize when they are currently acting on-policy, through the sharp entropy drop of assistant-mode generation. Both signals are tied to the Assistant persona that post-training mainly shapes. This paper widens the frame to cross-persona authorship judgement on Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We measure a matrix of authorship claim rates over a panel of evaluator and generator personas spanning librarian to dragon to Shakespeare, and make two claims. First, on the Assistant's own row of the matrix, the Assistant's claim rate, the persona-vector distance from the Assistant in activation space, and the entropy gap between the Assistant's surprise on a persona's text and the persona's surprise on its own text are all tightly coupled. This extends the entropy signature of acting from the companion paper to a retrospective signature of having acted. Second, this coupling fails off the Assistant's row: the natural symmetric extension of the entropy gap does not predict authorship for distinctive evaluators (pirate, dragon, Shakespeare); what does is asymmetric -- the evaluator's surprise compared to the Assistant's surprise on the same text, not to the generator's. We rule out the alternative that any persona could play this reference role by trying many candidate substitutes; none does. We interpret the asymmetry as the model performing an implicit Bayesian likelihood-ratio test against the Assistant as the canonical alternative hypothesis, with the persona-vector geometry of citetchen2025persona (every persona a delta off the Assistant) ensuring that the Assistant is the only persona universally accessible to that test.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2026.
Builds on
16 of 18 references.
References · 16
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 2021An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inferencecited by 915
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
- 2023Understanding the Effects of RLHF on LLM Generalisation and Diversitycited by 386
- 2023Role-Play with Large Language Modelscited by 290
- 2024Spotting LLMs With Binoculars: Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 255
- 2023Large Language Models Are Latent Variable Models: Explaining and Finding Good Demonstrations for In-Context Learningcited by 149
- 2022Language Models as Agent Modelscited by 131
- 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 105
- 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 86
4 more
- 2024Creativity Has Left the Chat: The Price of Debiasing Language Modelscited by 29
- 2024Self-Recognition in Language Modelscited by 17
- 2024Inspection and Control of Self-Generated-Text Recognition Ability in Llama3-8b-Instructcited by 15
- 2026From Simulation to Enaction: Post-trained language models recognize and react to their own generationscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.