Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Self-Recognition in 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

arxiv 2407.06946 v2 pith:4QP3S4FC submitted 2024-07-09 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords self-recognitionmodelsnovelbestclosed-sourceconsistentlanguagesecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A rapidly growing number of applications rely on a small set of closed-source language models (LMs). This dependency might introduce novel security risks if LMs develop self-recognition capabilities. Inspired by human identity verification methods, we propose a novel approach for assessing self-recognition in LMs using model-generated "security questions". Our test can be externally administered to monitor frontier models as it does not require access to internal model parameters or output probabilities. We use our test to examine self-recognition in ten of the most capable open- and closed-source LMs currently publicly available. Our extensive experiments found no empirical evidence of general or consistent self-recognition in any examined LM. Instead, our results suggest that given a set of alternatives, LMs seek to pick the "best" answer, regardless of its origin. Moreover, we find indications that preferences about which models produce the best answers are consistent across LMs. We additionally uncover novel insights on position bias considerations for LMs in multiple-choice settings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Asymmetric Communication: Large Language Models and Language Games

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Human–LLM exchange is asymmetric communication: model outputs circulate without commitments, so AGI, hallucination, agency, sentience, and alignment are receiver-side category mistakes, and alignment is institutional ...

  2. The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLMs align with human moral judgments only under high consensus, concentrate on a narrow set of moral values, and the profile-based prompting method's reported improvement is evaluated in-sample.

Pith tools