Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 83 references

Order Is Not Control

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Control requires a receiver-gated response law rather than order alone, as shown by consistent patterns across biological and LLM systems.

desk verdict The paper defines control via a new receiver-gated operator and reports LLM prediction numbers, but the cross-domain identity claim lacks shown structural equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.12923 v1 pith:ROVG6VBF submitted 2026-06-11 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Gareth Seneque , Lap-Hang Ho , Nafise Erfanian Saeedi , Jeffrey Molendijk , Tim Elson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords receiver-gatedresponselawcontrolversusorderAIalignmentneuralperturbationdriven-dissipativesystemsstochasticoperatorsbiologicalLLMsteering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that order-inducing objects in AI alignment and neural studies do not amount to control. Instead, control depends on a receiver-gated response law, defined as a denominator-indexed operator that takes material state, action or drive, bath, and receiver state as inputs to produce response displacement, sinks, effort, and basin projection. This law appears in mouse ALM, C. elegans, zebrafish, LLM output panels, adapters, and stochastic operators, where interventions prove local and context-dependent. A reader would care because it reframes steering and perturbation work around measurable response operators instead of assuming order produces controllable outcomes. The result is a driven-dissipative account in which drives act through prepared media to yield admitted movement or overdrive.

What carries the argument

The receiver-gated response law, a denominator-indexed operator that maps material state, action/drive, bath, and receiver state to response displacement, sinks, effort, and basin projection.

What would settle it

If held-out observers in the LLM panels fail to predict system-effect and target/oracle families at the reported 93.6 percent and 91.7 percent accuracy, or if biological interventions do not exhibit the local admitted, saturated, or overdriven patterns under varied receiver states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Order is not control. Control requires a receiver-gated response law: a denominator-indexed operator mapping material state, action/drive, bath, and receiver state to response displacement, sinks, effort, and basin projection. The law is identified across biological panels (mouse ALM, C. elegans, zebrafish) and LLM panels, where response vectors are predictable at 72.8-73.7 percent component-sign accuracy (rising to 84.3-84.8 percent on nonzero components) and held-out observers predict system-effect and target families at 93.6 percent and 91.7 percent accuracy. Interventions are admitted, saturated, sign-changing, leaky, or overdriven depending on medium, bath, receiver state, action port,

Load-bearing premise

The biological panels and LLM panels demonstrate instances of the same receiver-gated response law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An intervention can be admitted, saturated, sign-changing, leaky, or overdriven depending on medium, bath, receiver state, action port, and comparator.
  • Control is assigned when finite effort moves a target or outcome-readout class under the same denominator while damage, null/evasive, invalid format, overdrive, and unnecessary effort stay bounded.
  • Constitution-conditioned adapters reshape susceptibility as prepared media.
  • Stochastic-operator panels separate measured opportunity from deployable action policies.
  • The evidence supports local admitted control and measurable stochastic response operators at the mesoscopic level.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The local character of the response law implies that alignment techniques may need to prepare specific receiver states rather than rely on global order.
  • If the same denominator-indexed structure holds across domains, perturbation experiments could be designed to test transfer of control metrics from biological to artificial systems without assuming coordinate identity.
  • The separation of opportunity from deployable policies in stochastic panels suggests a route to quantify when an LLM intervention remains within bounded effort.
  • Future tests could check whether adapter conditioning consistently alters the sign and saturation behavior of generated responses under fixed drives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that order is not control. Control is defined as requiring a receiver-gated response law: a denominator-indexed operator mapping material state, action/drive, bath, and receiver state to response displacement, sinks, effort, and basin projection. The paper claims to identify this law in biological panels (mouse ALM, C. elegans, zebrafish) providing physical response-operator evidence and in LLM panels, reporting 72.8-73.7% component-sign accuracy (84.3-84.8% on nonzero components) across four material conditions, plus held-out prediction accuracies of 93.6% for system-effect and 91.7% for target/oracle families. It concludes that the laws are local (admitted, saturated, sign-changing, leaky, or overdriven depending on conditions), control is assigned when finite effort moves a target under the same denominator with bounded damage/null/overdrive, and this yields a driven-dissipative mesoscopic account while excluding coordinate identity, controller conclusions, and pre-generation control.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies a quantifiable, domain-spanning distinction between order-inducing objects and control at the mesoscopic level, with direct relevance to AI alignment, interpretability, and neural perturbation studies. The LLM panel accuracies constitute concrete, falsifiable measurements of response predictability under material conditions, and the exclusion of certain inferences (e.g., coordinate identity) is explicitly scoped. The approach of treating adapters as prepared media and separating opportunity from policy is a constructive modeling choice.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The inference that the identical denominator-indexed operator operates across biological and LLM panels is not supported by an explicit common operator expression, reduction, or equivalence proof showing that the functional form, indexing, saturation/leakage rules, and basin-projection mapping match between the physical response operators and the LLM-generated output laws. The reported component-sign and held-out accuracies establish only statistical predictability of outputs under four material conditions; they do not demonstrate structural identity of the operator.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The definition of control as necessarily requiring the receiver-gated response law is introduced axiomatically. No independent criterion or comparison to standard control-theoretic notions (e.g., feedback, observability, or dissipativity) is supplied to establish that this specific mapping is required for control rather than being a sufficient but non-necessary characterization; this renders the claim that order-inducing objects are not control dependent on acceptance of the new definition.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'four material conditions' without enumerating them; an explicit list or table would improve reproducibility and allow readers to assess whether the conditions are commensurate across biological and LLM panels.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a consolidated table reporting accuracies, component counts, and held-out metrics side-by-side for all panels (biological, LLM, adapter, stochastic-operator) to facilitate direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We respond point by point to the major comments and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The inference that the identical denominator-indexed operator operates across biological and LLM panels is not supported by an explicit common operator expression, reduction, or equivalence proof showing that the functional form, indexing, saturation/leakage rules, and basin-projection mapping match between the physical response operators and the LLM-generated output laws. The reported component-sign and held-out accuracies establish only statistical predictability of outputs under four material conditions; they do not demonstrate structural identity of the operator.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not supply an explicit common operator expression or formal equivalence proof establishing structural identity between the biological and LLM instantiations. The identification rests on the shared functional form of the denominator-indexed mapping together with the empirical observation that this form produces statistically predictable response components under four matched material conditions. The reported accuracies therefore demonstrate consistent applicability of the operator structure rather than a reduction or identity proof. We will revise the abstract and the relevant results sections to replace the phrasing of an 'identical' operator with language that the same functional form is identified and shown to be predictive across domains. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The definition of control as necessarily requiring the receiver-gated response law is introduced axiomatically. No independent criterion or comparison to standard control-theoretic notions (e.g., feedback, observability, or dissipativity) is supplied to establish that this specific mapping is required for control rather than being a sufficient but non-necessary characterization; this renders the claim that order-inducing objects are not control dependent on acceptance of the new definition.

    Authors: The definition is introduced as the minimal mapping required to support a driven-dissipative, receiver-gated account at the mesoscopic level that distinguishes control from order. It is not asserted to be the unique possible definition of control in all contexts. We will add a short paragraph in the introduction that situates the proposed mapping relative to classical notions of feedback, observability, and dissipativity, making explicit that the definition is offered as a sufficient characterization for the scope of the present work rather than a necessary condition in the classical sense. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Control defined via receiver-gated operator whose presence is then reported as identified in panels

  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "Control requires a receiver-gated response law: a denominator-indexed operator mapping material state, action/drive, bath, and receiver state to response displacement, sinks, effort, and basin projection. We identify it across biological, LLM, adapter, and stochastic-operator panels."

    The paper defines control as the presence of this exact operator, then claims to identify the operator in the panels on the basis of component-sign accuracies (72.8-73.7 % overall) and held-out prediction accuracies. Because the operator is introduced as definitional, the reported identification is consistent with the definition by construction and does not constitute an independent test of the claimed functional form across domains.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation begins by stipulating that control requires a specific denominator-indexed operator, then states that this operator is identified in the biological and LLM panels via predictability metrics. The metrics establish statistical association under four conditions but do not independently verify the operator's functional form, indexing, or saturation rules; the identification therefore reduces to consistency with the introduced definition rather than an external criterion. No self-citations or prior uniqueness theorems are invoked in the provided text, so the circularity is confined to the self-definitional step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on an ad-hoc definition of control introduced by the paper and the assumption that the reported panels instantiate that definition. No numerical free parameters are stated. The framework is largely self-contained within the new terminology.

assumptions (1)
  • ad hoc to paper Control is defined as requiring a receiver-gated response law with the specified mapping from states to responses.
    This definition is introduced in the abstract as the requirement that distinguishes control from order.
invented entities (2)
  • denominator-indexed operator
    purpose: To provide the mathematical structure for the receiver-gated response law that defines control.
    Newly postulated operator without independent evidence outside the paper.
  • receiver-gated response law
    purpose: To serve as the criterion separating control from mere order.
    Core invented concept of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Order Is Not Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROVG6VBF

@misc{pith2026260612923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Order Is Not Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROVG6VBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.12923}
}
read the original abstract

AI alignment, interpretability, steering, and neural perturbation studies identify order-inducing objects. We argue that order is not control. Control requires a receiver-gated response law: a denominator-indexed operator mapping material state, action/drive, bath, and receiver state to response displacement, sinks, effort, and basin projection. We identify it across biological, LLM, adapter, and stochastic-operator panels. The laws are local: an intervention can be admitted, saturated, sign-changing, leaky, or overdriven depending on medium, bath, receiver state, action port, and comparator. Control is assigned when finite effort moves a target or outcome-readout class under the same denominator while damage, null/evasive, invalid format, overdrive, and unnecessary effort stay bounded. Mouse ALM, C. elegans, and zebrafish panels provide physical response-operator evidence while excluding coordinate identity and controller conclusions. LLM panels show generated-output response laws: across four material conditions, response vectors are predictable at 72.8-73.7% component-sign accuracy, rising to 84.3-84.8% on nonzero components; held-out observers predict system-effect and target/oracle families at 93.6% and 91.7% accuracy. Constitution-conditioned adapters reshape susceptibility as prepared media, and stochastic-operator panels separate measured opportunity from deployable action policies. This gives a driven-dissipative response-system account at the mesoscopic control level: drives act through prepared media, baths, and receivers, producing admitted movement, impedance, sinks, or overdrive. The evidence supports local admitted control and measurable stochastic response operators, while leaving deployable pre-generation control, hidden/logit causal sufficiency, biological-to-LLM coordinate identity, and literal thermodynamic quantities outside scope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Receiver-gated response law and evidence key. Candidate drives become control only when a measured receiver admits them into target-basin movement with sink and effort channels bounded. The figure defines the response-chain object rather than a single example: the same denominator-conditioned structure is measured at biological, generated-output, adapter, and stochastic-operator ports. Local semantic-repair examples… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-substrate response-law bridge. The bridge is role-level: biological, LLM-output, and adapter￾media systems instantiate the same denominator-indexed response-law roles, not shared raw coordinates or universal control. The biological column shows physical perturbation-substrate response operators: material condition, drive, bath or protocol, receiver, response displacement, sink routing, held-out response, and b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LLM generated-output response dynamics under matched denominators. Visible semantic fields and finite action probes are locally admitted and can overdrive when dose or budget increases. The generated-output and finite-dose panels fix prompt family, model/material state, decode bath, visible-field action, text-only completion rubric, and comparator. Scheduler validation supports local field selection, while finite-do… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Adapters as prepared response media. Constitution-conditioned adapters change how the same visible fields are admitted into generated-output basins. The denominator fixes base model family, frozen adapter state, prompt/bath, visible-field action, text-only completion r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evidence ladder for predictive response laws and the controller limits. Panel A shows response￾vector sign prediction across the four main material conditions. Panel B shows non-endpoint held-out observer prediction for system-effect and target/oracle binary families. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abc align: Large language model alignment for safety & accuracy, 2024

    Gareth Seneque, Lap-Hang Ho, Ariel Kuperman, Nafise Erfanian Saeedi, and Jeffrey Molendijk. Abc align: Large language model alignment for safety & accuracy, 2024. URL https://arxiv.or g/abs/2408.00307

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Enigma: The geometry of reasoning and alignment in large-language models,

    Gareth Seneque, Lap-Hang Ho, Nafise Erfanian Saeedi, Jeffrey Molendijk, Ariel Kupermann, and Tim Elson. Enigma: The geometry of reasoning and alignment in large-language models,

  3. [3]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11278

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    ATLAS: Constitution-Conditioned Latent Geometry and Redistribution Across Language Models and Neural Perturbation Data

    Gareth Seneque, Lap-Hang Ho, Nafise Erfanian Saeedi, Jeffrey Molendijk, and Tim Elson. Atlas: Constitution-conditioned latent geometry and redistribution across language models and neural perturbation data, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17663

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback

    Yuntao Bai et al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2212.08073

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Collective constitutional ai: Aligning a language model with public input

    Saffron Huang et al. Collective constitutional ai: Aligning a language model with public input. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency,

    2024

  7. [7]

    Collective constitutional ai: Aligning a language model with public input

    doi: 10.1145/3630106.3658979. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07814

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658979

  8. [8]

    Self-supervised alignment with mutual information: Learning to follow principles without preference labels, 2024

    Jan-Philipp Franken et al. Self-supervised alignment with mutual information: Learning to follow principles without preference labels, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14313

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Let’s verify step by step, 2023

    Hunter Lightman et al. Let’s verify step by step, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, page...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Alignment faking in large language models, 2024

    Ryan Greenblatt et al. Alignment faking in large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.or g/abs/2412.14093

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Why do some language models fake alignment while others don’t?, 2025

    Abhay Sheshadri et al. Why do some language models fake alignment while others don’t?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18032

    2025

  5. [13]

    A mathematical framework for transformer circuits, 2021

    Nelson Elhage et al. A mathematical framework for transformer circuits, 2021. URL https: //transformer-circuits.pub/2021/framework/index.html

    2021

  6. [14]

    Circuit tracing: Revealing computational graphs in language models, 2025

    Anthropic. Circuit tracing: Revealing computational graphs in language models, 2025. URL https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/methods.html

    2025

  7. [15]

    Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency, 2023

    Andy Zou et al. Representation engineering: A top-down approach to ai transparency, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01405

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Activation addition: Steering language models without optimiza- tion, 2023

    Alexander Matt Turner et al. Activation addition: Steering language models without optimiza- tion, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10248

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Steering Llama 2 via contrastive activation addition

    Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Turner. Steering Llama 2 via contrastive activation addition. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 15504–15522, 2024. doi: 10.18653/v1/...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction, 2024

    Andy Arditi et al. Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11717

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lee et al

    Bruce W. Lee et al. Programming refusal with conditional activation steering, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05907

    2024

  12. [20]

    Steering off course: Reliability challenges in steering language models,

    Patricia Da Silva et al. Steering off course: Reliability challenges in steering language models,

  13. [21]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.04635

  14. [22]

    Position: The platonic representation hypothesis

    Minyoung Huh, Brian Cheung, Tongzhou Wang, and Phillip Isola. Position: The platonic representation hypothesis. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/huh24a.html

    2024

  15. [23]

    Rishi Jha, Collin Zhang, Vitaly Shmatikov, and John X. Morris. Harnessing the universal geometry of embeddings, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12540

    2025

  16. [24]

    Revisiting the platonic representation hypothesis: An aristotelian view, 2026

    Fabian Groeger, Shuo Wen, and Maria Brbic. Revisiting the platonic representation hypothesis: An aristotelian view, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.14486

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sensory experience steers representational drift in mouse visual cortex.Nature Communications, 15, 2024

    Joel Bauer et al. Sensory experience steers representational drift in mouse visual cortex.Nature Communications, 15, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53326-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s4 1467-024-53326-x

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Climer, Heydar Davoudi, Jun Young Oh, and Daniel A

    Jason R. Climer, Heydar Davoudi, Jun Young Oh, and Daniel A. Dombeck. Hippocampal representations drift in stable multisensory environments.Nature, 645:457–465, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09245-y. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09245-y

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    A brain-wide map of neural activity during complex behaviour.Nature, 645:177–191, 2025

    The International Brain Laboratory. A brain-wide map of neural activity during complex behaviour.Nature, 645:177–191, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09235-0. URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09235-0

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Brain-wide representations of prior information in mouse decision-making

    Charles Findling et al. Brain-wide representations of prior information in mouse decision-making. Nature, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09226-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025- 09226-1

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 11(5-6):355–607, 2019

    Gabriel Peyre and Marco Cuturi. Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 11(5-6):355–607, 2019. doi: 10.1561/2200000073. URL https://doi.org/10.1561/2200000073

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Unbalanced optimal transport: Dynamic and kantorovich formulations.Journal of Functional Analysis, 274 (11):3090–3123, 2018

    Lenaic Chizat, Gabriel Peyre, Bernhard Schmitzer, and Francois-Xavier Vialard. Unbalanced optimal transport: Dynamic and kantorovich formulations.Journal of Functional Analysis, 274 (11):3090–3123, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jfa.2018.03.008. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2018.0 3.008

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Learning stochastic dynamics from snapshots through regularized unbalanced optimal transport, 2025

    Zhenyi Zhang, Tiejun Li, and Peijie Zhou. Learning stochastic dynamics from snapshots through regularized unbalanced optimal transport, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00844

    2025

  24. [32]

    Springer, 2016

    Shun-ichi Amari.Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978- 4-431-55978-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55978-8

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    R. E. Kalman. On the general theory of control systems. InProceedings of the First International Congress on Automatic Control, 1960. doi: 10.1016/S1474-6670(17)70094-8. URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)70094-8. 23

    1960 doi

  26. [34]

    Jan C. Willems. Dissipative dynamical systems part i: General theory.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 45:321–351, 1972. doi: 10.1007/BF01665402. URL https://doi.org/10 .1007/BF01665402

    1972 doi

  27. [35]

    Time, structure, and fluctuations.Science, 201(4358):777–785, 1978

    Ilya Prigogine. Time, structure, and fluctuations.Science, 201(4358):777–785, 1978. doi: 10.1126/science.201.4358.777. URL https://doi.org/10.1126/science.201.4358.777

    1978 doi

  28. [36]

    Data-driven optimal control of unknown nonlinear dynamical systems using the koopman operator

    Zhexuan Zeng, Ruikun Zhou, Yiming Meng, and Jun Liu. Data-driven optimal control of unknown nonlinear dynamical systems using the koopman operator. InProceedings of the 7th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, pages 1127–1139, 2025. URL https://proceedings.mlr.pr...

    2025

  29. [37]

    Transition-path theory and path-finding algorithms for the study of rare events.Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 61:391–420, 2010

    Weinan E and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Transition-path theory and path-finding algorithms for the study of rare events.Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 61:391–420, 2010. doi: 10.1146/annurev.physchem.040808.090412. URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.physchem.0 40808.090412

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https:...

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Agent security bench (ASB): Formalizing and benchmarking attacks and defenses in LLM-based agents

    Hanrong Zhang, Jingyuan Huang, Kai Mei, Yifei Yao, Zhenting Wang, Chenlu Zhan, Hongwei Wang, and Yongfeng Zhang. Agent security bench (ASB): Formalizing and benchmarking attacks and defenses in LLM-based agents. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations,

  32. [40]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02644

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1977

    Gregoire Nicolis and Ilya Prigogine.Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order Through Fluctuations. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1977. ISBN 0471024015

    1977

  34. [42]

    M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg. Pattern formation outside of equilibrium.Reviews of Modern Physics, 65(3):851–1112, 1993. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.65.851. URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.65.851

    1993 doi

  35. [43]

    Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines.Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(12):126001, 2012

    Udo Seifert. Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines.Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(12):126001, 2012. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/75/12/126001

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes

    Ryogo Kubo. Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible processes. i. general theory and simple applications to magnetic and conduction problems.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 12(6):570–586, 1957. doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.12.570. URL https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.12.570

    1957 doi

  37. [45]

    Springer, 3 edition, 1983

    Hermann Haken.Synergetics: An Introduction. Springer, 3 edition, 1983. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 642-88338-5. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-88338-5

    1983 doi

  38. [46]

    R. E. Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems.Journal of Basic Engineering, 82(1):35–45, 1960. doi: 10.1115/1.3662552. URL https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3662 552

    1960 doi

  39. [47]

    Åström and Richard M

    Karl J. Åström and Richard M. Murray.Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press, 2 edition, 2021. ISBN 9780691193984. URL https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691193984/feedback-systems. 24

    2021

  40. [48]

    Mikail Khona and Ila R. Fiete. Attractor and integrator networks in the brain.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(12):744–766, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41583-022-00642-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00642-0

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Perich, Divya Narain, and Juan A

    Matthew G. Perich, Divya Narain, and Juan A. Gallego. A neural manifold view of the brain.Nature Neuroscience, 28:1582–1597, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41593-025-02031-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-025-02031-z

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    Churchland, John P

    Mark M. Churchland, John P. Cunningham, Matthew T. Kaufman, Justin D. Foster, Paul Nuyujukian, Stephen I. Ryu, and Krishna V. Shenoy. Neural population dynamics during reaching.Nature, 487(7405):51–56, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nature11129. URL https://doi.org/10.1 038/nature11129

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    Towards best practices of activation patching in language models: Metrics and methods

    Fred Zhang and Neel Nanda. Towards best practices of activation patching in language models: Metrics and methods. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16042

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes

    Lars Onsager. Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. i.Physical Review, 37(4):405–426,

  45. [53]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.37.405

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.37.405. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.37.405

    doi

  46. [54]

    Yuffa and John A

    Alex J. Yuffa and John A. Scales. Linear response laws and causality in electrodynamics. European Journal of Physics, 33(6):1635–1650, 2012. doi: 10.1088/0143-0807/33/6/1635. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/33/6/1635

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    A review of linear response theory for general differentiable dynamical systems

    David Ruelle. A review of linear response theory for general differentiable dynamical systems. Nonlinearity, 22(4):855–870, 2009. doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/22/4/009. URL https://doi.org/10 .1088/0951-7715/22/4/009

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    Coleman and Walter Noll

    Bernard D. Coleman and Walter Noll. Foundations of linear viscoelasticity.Reviews of Modern Physics, 33(2):239–249, 1961. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.33.239. URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.33.239

    1961 doi

  49. [57]

    Gemma 3 technical report, 2025

    Gemma Team. Gemma 3 technical report, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19786

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Phi-4-mini technical report: Compact yet powerful multimodal language models via mixture-of-loras, 2025

    Marah Abdin et al. Phi-4-mini technical report: Compact yet powerful multimodal language models via mixture-of-loras, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01743

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    The llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori et al. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.2 1783

    2024

  52. [60]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    An Yang et al. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0)

    National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

  54. [62]

    URL https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

    doi

  55. [63]

    Robust neuronal dynamics in premotor cortex during motor planning.Nature, 532:459–464, 2016

    Nuo Li, Kayvon Daie, Karel Svoboda, and Shaul Druckmann. Robust neuronal dynamics in premotor cortex during motor planning.Nature, 532:459–464, 2016. doi: 10.1038/nature17643. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17643

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    Discrete attractor dynamics underlies persistent activity in the frontal cortex, 2019

    Karel Svoboda and Hidehiko Inagaki. Discrete attractor dynamics underlies persistent activity in the frontal cortex, 2019. URL https://janelia.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Discrete_attr actor_dynamics_underlies_persistent_activity_in_the_frontal_cortex/7489253. Janelia Resear...

    2019

  57. [65]

    Dataset (matlab format) from chen kang et al

    Nuo Li and Guang Chen. Dataset (matlab format) from chen kang et al. (2021) modularity and robustness of frontal cortex networks, 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6713616. Zenodo dataset

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Dataset (matlab format) from yang et al

    Nuo Li and Weiguo Yang. Dataset (matlab format) from yang et al. (2022) thalamus-driven functional populations in frontal cortex support decision-making, 2022. URL https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.6846161. Zenodo dataset

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    pyramidal cell types drive functionally distinct cortical activity patterns during decision-making

    Anne Churchland, Xiaonan Sun, and Simon Musall. Data supporting “pyramidal cell types drive functionally distinct cortical activity patterns during decision-making”, 2023. URL https://plus.figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_supporting_Pyramidal_cell_types_driv e_functionally_d...

    2023

  60. [68]

    Standardized and reproducible measurement of decision- making in mice.eLife, 10:e63711, 2021

    The International Brain Laboratory. Standardized and reproducible measurement of decision- making in mice.eLife, 10:e63711, 2021. doi: 10.7554/elife.63711. URL https://elifesciences.or g/articles/63711

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Reproducibility of in vivo electrophysiological mea- surements in mice.eLife, 13:RP100840, 2025

    The International Brain Laboratory. Reproducibility of in vivo electrophysiological mea- surements in mice.eLife, 13:RP100840, 2025. doi: 10.7554/elife.100840.3. URL https://elifesciences.org/articles/100840

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    Francesco Randi, Anuj Sharma, Sophie Dvali, and Andrew M. Leifer. Neural signal propagation atlas of caenorhabditis elegans, 2024. URL https://dandiarchive.org/dandiset/001075/0.24093 0.1859. DANDI archive dataset

    2024

  63. [71]

    Thermoregulatory responses forebrain, 2023

    Martin Haesemeyer and Kaarthik Balakrishnan. Thermoregulatory responses forebrain, 2023. URL https://dandiarchive.org/dandiset/000235/0.230316.1600. DANDI archive dataset

    2023

  64. [72]

    Thermoregulatory responses midbrain, 2023

    Martin Haesemeyer and Kaarthik Balakrishnan. Thermoregulatory responses midbrain, 2023. URL https://dandiarchive.org/dandiset/000236/0.230316.2031. DANDI archive dataset

    2023

  65. [73]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Measuring AI R&D automation, 2026

    Alan Chan, Ranay Padarath, Joe Kwon, Hilary Greaves, and Markus Anderljung. Measuring AI R&D automation, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03992

    2026

  67. [75]

    Inspectable AI for science: A research object approach to generative AI governance,

    Ruta Binkyte, Sharif Abuaddba, Chamikara Mahawaga, Ming Ding, Natasha Fernandes, and Mario Fritz. Inspectable AI for science: A research object approach to generative AI governance,

  68. [76]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11261

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Zhehao Zhang, Weijie Xu, Fanyou Wu, and Chandan K. Reddy. Falsereject: A resource for improving contextual safety and mitigating over-refusals in LLMs via structured reasoning,

  70. [78]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08054

  71. [79]

    DeceptionBench: A comprehensive benchmark for AI deception behaviors in real-world scenarios,

    Yao Huang, Yitong Sun, Yichi Zhang, Ruochen Zhang, Yinpeng Dong, and Xingxing Wei. DeceptionBench: A comprehensive benchmark for AI deception behaviors in real-world scenarios,

  72. [80]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15501

  73. [81]

    SycEval: Evaluating LLM sycophancy, 2025

    Aaron Fanous, Jacob Goldberg, Ank Agarwal, Joanna Lin, Anson Zhou, Sonnet Xu, Vasiliki Bikia, Roxana Daneshjou, and Sanmi Koyejo. SycEval: Evaluating LLM sycophancy, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08177. 26

    2025

  74. [82]

    Jiseung Hong, Grace Byun, Seungone Kim, Kai Shu, and Jinho D. Choi. Measuring sycophancy of language models in multi-turn dialogues, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23840

    2025

  75. [83]

    this field moved this generated- output basin under this bath while preserving damage/null/format health channels

    James Chua, Jan Betley, Mia Taylor, and Owain Evans. Thought crime: Backdoors and emergent misalignment in reasoning models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13206. 27 Appendix A. Methods, Denominators, And Evidence Standards Appendix A defines the denominator, rubric, uti...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.