REVIEW 3 cited by
Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In this work, we unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs) -- unique patterns in their outputs that can be used to distinguish the models. To do so, we consider a simple classification task: given a particular text output, the objective is to predict the source LLM that generates the text. We evaluate this synthetic task across various groups of LLMs and find that simply fine-tuning text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy. Notably, we achieve 97.1% accuracy on held-out validation data in the five-way classification problem involving ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, Gemini, and DeepSeek. Our further investigation reveals that these idiosyncrasies are rooted in word-level distributions. These patterns persist even when the texts are rewritten, translated, or summarized by an external LLM, suggesting that they are also encoded in the semantic content. Additionally, we leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies. Finally, we discuss the broader implications of our findings, including training on synthetic data, inferring model similarity, and robust evaluation of LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/locuslab/llm-idiosyncrasies.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Pay for The Second-Best Service: A Game-Theoretic Approach Against Dishonest LLM Providers
A delegation mechanism makes near-truthful behavior approximately dominant for LLM API providers, and a matching impossibility result caps user utility at the second-best honest service.
-
Unlearning Isn't Invisible: Detecting Unlearning Traces in LLMs from Model Outputs
Unlearning in LLMs leaves detectable 'fingerprints' that let a simple classifier distinguish an unlearned model from its original, even on unrelated prompts.
-
Why do AI agents communicate in human language?
The paper argues that natural language is structurally mismatched to LLM internal representations, so future AI agents should abandon it for inter-agent communication and train models with structured communication primitives.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.