Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

On the Effect of Uncertainty on Layer-wise Inference Dynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across five models and eleven datasets, LLMs commit to their final answer at the same layers whether the answer is certain or uncertain.

desk verdict A useful empirical study whose headline claim overreaches: the paper's own Table 1 shows a systematic layer-wise shift for incorrect answers, so the 'largely aligned' conclusion needs quantitative backing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06722 v2 pith:J2X3BRQ3 submitted 2025-07-09 cs.CL cs.LG

Sunwoo Kim , Haneul Yoo , Alice Oh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords epistemicuncertaintyinferencedynamicsTunedLenspredictiondepthlayer-wiseanalysislargelanguagemodelsinterpretabilitymultiple-choicequestionanswering
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

This paper tests whether large language models process predictions differently when they are uncertain. Using the Tuned Lens to read out token probabilities at every layer, it compares the layer-by-layer trajectories of correct and incorrect answers across five models and eleven multiple-choice datasets. The trajectories are largely aligned: both correct and incorrect outputs show a sharp increase in confidence at similar layers, so the model seems to decide on its output at the same depth regardless of uncertainty. The paper also finds a weak but consistent tendency for incorrect answers to commit slightly later, and a positive correlation between a dataset's accuracy score and the size of that commitment gap, suggesting that more competent models may adapt their inference to uncertainty to a greater degree.

What carries the argument

Tuned Lens (Belrose et al., 2023): a per-layer affine probe that converts a frozen transformer's residual-stream hidden states into vocabulary logits, giving a read-off of what the model believes at each layer. The paper uses these layer-wise logits to compute probability trajectories for the answer-label tokens and the prediction depth (Baldock et al., 2021), the first layer at which the top prediction stabilizes. The comparison of these trajectories and depth distributions for correct versus incorrect answers carries the argument.

What would settle it

Run the same trajectory analysis but label uncertainty with an independent signal, such as self-consistency over sampled generations or ensemble disagreement, instead of answer correctness; if high-uncertainty and low-uncertainty examples show visibly different commitment layers or trajectory shapes, the alignment claim would be overturned. A simpler check is to find any model-dataset pair where the average top-label probability trajectory for incorrect answers rises at a clearly different layer than for correct answers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that uncertainty, defined as incorrectness on multiple-choice questions, does not change the layer-wise inference dynamics of large language models. The probability of the final prediction token rises abruptly at the same layers for correct and incorrect answers, and the distribution of prediction depths—the layer at which the model locks in its top choice—is nearly identical for the two groups. The paper also reports that the prediction depth for incorrect answers is weakly, positively correlated with incorrectness in 97% of model-dataset pairs, and that datasets where a model is more accurate (higher Cohen's Kappa) tend to show larger prediction-depth differences between correct and incorrect answers, which the authors read as preliminary evidence that adaptability to uncertainty may emerge with competence.

Load-bearing premise

The paper equates giving a wrong answer with being epistemically uncertain, so if models are sometimes confidently wrong or uncertain-but-correct, the comparison measures confidence rather than uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Layer-wise commitment timing alone cannot serve as a simple uncertainty detector, since certain and uncertain outputs commit at nearly the same depths.
  • Inference is characterized by an abrupt decision event at a specific layer, largely unaffected by the model's uncertainty.
  • The weak positive correlation between incorrectness and prediction depth suggests a small, consistent tendency for models to commit slightly later on uncertain questions.
  • The positive correlation between dataset accuracy (Kappa) and the correct-versus-incorrect prediction-depth gap suggests that more competent models may develop adaptive layer usage with respect to uncertainty.
  • The Tuned Lens trajectory method can be used to study how uncertainty affects inference across diverse tasks and models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If uncertainty does not change when the model commits, then any uncertainty signal must live in the content of the hidden states rather than in the timing of decisions, pointing toward representation-level detectors rather than depth-based ones.
  • Because correctness is a noisy proxy for epistemic uncertainty, a direct test using self-consistency or ensemble disagreement might reveal larger dynamic differences than this paper observes; the alignment result bounds the contribution of depth dynamics under the correctness proxy, not necessarily under all uncertainty definitions.
  • The Kappa-to-prediction-depth-difference correlation is observational; a causal test could manipulate task difficulty or add deliberate noise to questions to see whether commitment-layer shifts track induced uncertainty within the same model.
  • Early-exit systems that use intermediate confidence to decide when to stop might still work, since they do not require uncertainty to shift the commitment layer, only that intermediate confidence is predictive of final correctness; the alignment result does not rule that out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether epistemic uncertainty changes the layer-wise inference dynamics of LLMs, using Tuned Lens to extract token-probability trajectories and prediction depth (PD) across 11 multiple-choice datasets and 5 models. The authors report that correct and incorrect predictions show 'largely aligned' probability trajectories and similar PD distributions, concluding that uncertainty does not seem to affect inference dynamics, while also presenting evidence that more competent models may show greater adaptive dynamics.

Significance. If the central negative result were firmly established, the paper would be a useful cautionary finding for the interpretability and uncertainty-detection communities, showing that simple layer-wise commitment behavior does not reliably encode epistemic uncertainty. The study's breadth—5 models and 11 datasets—and its use of the established Tuned Lens method are strengths. However, the reported evidence does not yet support the strong claim in the abstract: the paper's own Table 1 shows a systematic positive correlation between incorrectness and PD, and the alignment claims rest on visual inspection of averaged curves without error bars or statistical tests. The paper also has an incomplete presentation of Figure 3, which undermines the secondary claim about model competence. These issues are fixable with re-analysis and reframing, but they are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Table 1] The abstract claims that 'uncertainty does not seem to affect inference dynamics' and that trajectories are 'largely aligned,' but Table 1 reports Pearson correlations between answer incorrectness and prediction depth that are 97% positive across model-dataset pairs, with many values above 0.300 (e.g., ARC-Easy at 0.449 for Llama-3-8B, SciQ at 0.480, ANLI-R2 at 0.464 for Mistral-Nemo-Instruct). This is a systematic tendency for incorrect answers to commit at later layers, which is itself an effect of the studied variable on layer-wise dynamics. The paper needs to reconcile this quantitative result with the negative claim, either by providing a quantitative trajectory-alignment metric that controls for the PD shift, or by substantially softening the conclusion.
  2. [Section 3, Figures 1 and 2] The claim that correct and incorrect probability trajectories are 'strongly aligned' and that PD distributions 'show similar peaks' is based entirely on visual inspection of averaged curves. No confidence intervals, error bars, or statistical tests for trajectory similarity or distribution equality are provided. Because the figures aggregate over thousands of questions, a small but systematic per-question shift in commitment layer could be invisible in the average while still being well captured by the positive correlations in Table 1. The authors should report per-layer bootstrap confidence intervals on the difference between correct and incorrect trajectories, and an alignment statistic (e.g., mean absolute difference, area between curves) with its uncertainty, both pooled and per dataset.
  3. [Figure 3 and Section 2.2] Figure 3 displays only three of the five models (Llama-3-8B, Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct), while the text states that 'two out of the five models ... show statistically significant positive correlations' and that 'other larger models do not observe significant trends.' The figure caption references 'other larger models' but no such panels are shown. This incomplete presentation makes it impossible to evaluate the RQ2 evidence about model competence, especially because Vicuna-13B and Mistral-Nemo-Instruct are absent. Either show all five models in the figure or clearly explain why the other two are omitted.
  4. [Section 1] The paper explicitly equates incorrect answers with high epistemic uncertainty ('the model exhibits epistemic uncertainty when it incorrectly answers a question'). This assumption is load-bearing because the entire comparison is between correct and incorrect predictions. Incorrect answers could be confidently wrong (e.g., due to systematic bias), and correct answers could be the result of lucky guesses with low confidence. The paper provides no independent validation of the uncertainty proxy. At minimum, the conclusions should be reframed as being about correctness rather than uncertainty, or a supplementary analysis should condition on model confidence (e.g., final-layer probability bins) to show that the alignment holds within similar confidence levels.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] The definition of prediction depth is slightly ambiguous: 'the layer at which a model's top prediction is different from the previous layer's and is maintained for subsequent layers' should clarify whether the first layer can be a prediction depth and how ties are broken.
  2. [Figures 1 and 2] The figure captions refer to 'correct' and 'incorrect' without stating that these are defined by whether the model's final top label matches the ground-truth answer; this should be defined in the captions or in Section 2.
  3. [Table 1] The values in parentheses are labeled 'standard error rates'; it would be clearer to state explicitly that these are standard errors of the correlation coefficient, and to report the number of samples used for each correlation (which vary widely per Table 2).
  4. [Section 3] The sentence 'PD correlations ... show weak positive correlations across models and datasets, with 80% below 0.300. However, the results are 97% positive' is internally awkward; a significance test on the proportion of positive correlations would be a more informative way to characterize the consistency.
  5. [Appendix B.3] There is a typo in Table 3: 'OPTIMZIER' should be 'OPTIMIZER', and 'TOKENS PER STEP 2 18' is missing a superscript or spacing, making the value unclear.
  6. [Appendix B.2] The filtering to questions answered with a single label token may introduce selection bias, especially for models that often produce verbose answers; the paper should discuss how this filtering could affect the representativeness of the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the layer-wise analyses are empirical measurements, and the Tuned Lens probes are external or trained on WikiText-103 without using the comparison outcomes as fitting targets.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivational claim that reduces to its inputs. The central quantities, layer-wise probability trajectories and prediction depth, are computed from Tuned Lens probes (Belrose et al., 2023) applied to the models' hidden states. For three models the probes come from the external Tuned Lens repository, and for two models the paper trains new probes on WikiText-103 following the original implementation; in neither case are the probes fitted to correctness labels, to the study datasets, or to the PD/alignment statistics. The paper explicitly operationalizes epistemic uncertainty as answering incorrectly (Section 1), but the comparison of correct versus incorrect trajectories is measured rather than imposed by that definition; the reported alignment is an empirical finding, and the positive PD correlations in Table 1 are likewise measured and acknowledged. The apparent tension between averaged trajectory alignment and the positive PD correlations is an internal-consistency or statistical-evidence concern, not a circularity. No load-bearing step is justified only by a self-citation, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The paper's own hedging, including 'preliminary evidence', 'exploratory work', and 'Further testing should be done', indicates the conclusions are not presented as forced. Accordingly, no step rises to the standard of circularity defined by the review rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted constants; all numbers come from standard datasets, models, and the prior Tuned Lens method. The main assumptions are methodological proxies: label correctness for uncertainty, Tuned Lens faithfulness, and Kappa for competence. The Tuned Lens probes themselves are trained parameters, but they belong to the tool rather than to the scientific claim.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Tuned Lens affine probes faithfully reconstruct the model's latent predictions at each layer
    The whole analysis decodes hidden states into token probabilities via Tuned Lens; if these probes are not faithful, the trajectories and prediction depth measures do not reflect inference dynamics. Invoked in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Incorrect answers are a valid proxy for higher epistemic uncertainty
    Section 1: 'the model exhibits epistemic uncertainty when it incorrectly answers a question'. This definition equates wrongness with uncertainty, which is the standard but lossy proxy.
  • domain assumption Averaged trajectories over aggregated questions are representative of typical inference dynamics
    Figure 1 averages top-label probability trajectories across all questions per class; without error bars, the visual alignment claim assumes the mean is representative and that class-level averaging does not hide systematic subpopulations.
  • domain assumption Cohen's Kappa on a dataset is a valid measure of task competence for that model
    Figure 3 uses Kappa as the x-axis and interprets it as task proficiency; the claim that competence drives adaptive dynamics depends on this proxy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Effect of Uncertainty on Layer-wise Inference Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2X3BRQ3

@misc{pith2026250706722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Effect of Uncertainty on Layer-wise Inference Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2X3BRQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06722}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how large language models (LLMs) internally represent and process their predictions is central to detecting uncertainty and preventing hallucinations. While several studies have shown that models encode uncertainty in their hidden states, it is underexplored how this affects the way they process such hidden states. In this work, we demonstrate that the dynamics of output token probabilities across layers for certain and uncertain outputs are largely aligned, revealing that uncertainty does not seem to affect inference dynamics. Specifically, we use the Tuned Lens, a variant of the Logit Lens, to analyze the layer-wise probability trajectories of final prediction tokens across 11 datasets and 5 models. Using incorrect predictions as those with higher epistemic uncertainty, our results show aligned trajectories for certain and uncertain predictions that both observe abrupt increases in confidence at similar layers. We balance this finding by showing evidence that more competent models may learn to process uncertainty differently. Our findings challenge the feasibility of leveraging simplistic methods for detecting uncertainty at inference. More broadly, our work demonstrates how interpretability methods may be used to investigate the way uncertainty affects inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average probability trajectories. The x-axis denotes layer number and the y-axis denotes probability. The plots show how the final prediction token probability (solid lines) changes across layers for correct predictions (in blue) and incorrect predictions (in red). The probabilities for the other possible predictions in each case are condensed in the dashed line. The trajectories show strong alignment, moving synchr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prediction depth distribution. The x-axis denotes layer number and the y-axis denotes percentage of questions. The plots show how the prediction depth, or the layer at which the model committed to its output, is distributed similarly for correct (in blue) and incorrect answers (in red). This alignment shows that the model reserves a similar number of layers for processing certain and uncertain outputs. 0.00 0.25 0.5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kappa vs. prediction depth difference. Each point in the plots represents a dataset; the y-axis denotes the average prediction depth difference, or difference in layers at which the model committed to answers, between correctly and incorrectly answered questions and the x-axis denotes Cohen’s Kappa score, or accuracy adjusted for random chance. The positive correlations across the models show that as task competence… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahdritz, G., Qin, T., Vyas, N., Barak, B., and Edelman, B. L. Distinguishing the knowable from the unknowable with language models. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Deep learning through the lens of example difficulty

    Baldock, R., Maennel, H., and Neyshabur, B. Deep learning through the lens of example difficulty. In Ranzato, M., Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., Liang, P., and Vaughan, J. W. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pp.\ 10876--10889. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/file/...

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Eliciting latent predictions from transformers with the tuned lens

    Belrose, N., Furman, Z., Smith, L., Halawi, D., Ostrovsky, I., McKinney, L., Biderman, S., and Steinhardt, J. Eliciting latent predictions from transformers with the tuned lens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08112, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08112

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    E., Stoica, I., and Xing, E

    Chiang, W.-L., Li, Z., Lin, Z., Sheng, Y., Wu, Z., Zhang, H., Zheng, L., Zhuang, S., Zhuang, Y., Gonzalez, J. E., Stoica, I., and Xing, E. P. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\ URL https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    B ool Q : Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions

    Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., and Toutanova, K. B ool Q : Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. In Burstein, J., Doran, C., and Solorio, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol...

    doi:10.18653/v1/ 2019

  6. [6]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge, 2018

    Clark, P., Cowhey, I., Etzioni, O., Khot, T., Sabharwal, A., Schoenick, C., and Tafjord, O. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05457

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Do i know this entity? knowledge awareness and hallucinations in language models

    Ferrando, J., Obeso, O., Rajamanoharan, S., and Nanda, N. Do i know this entity? knowledge awareness and hallucinations in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14257, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14257

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Mechanistic interpretability of large language models with applications to the financial services industry

    Golgoon, A., Filom, K., and Ravi Kannan, A. Mechanistic interpretability of large language models with applications to the financial services industry. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance, ICAIF '24, pp.\ 660–668, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400710810. doi:10.1145/3677052.36986...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Grattafiori, A., Dubey, A., Jauhri, A., Pandey, A., Kadian, A., Al-Dahle, A., Letman, A., Mathur, A., Schelten, A., Vaughan, A., Yang, A., Fan, A., Goyal, A., Hartshorn, A., Yang, A., Mitra, A., Sravankumar, A., Korenev, A., Hinsvark, A., Rao, A., Zhang, A., Rodriguez, A., Gre...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding

    Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=d7KBjmI3GmQ

    2021

  3. [11]

    Decomposing uncertainty for large language models through input clarification ensembling

    Hou, B., Liu, Y., Qian, K., Andreas, J., Chang, S., and Zhang, Y. Decomposing uncertainty for large language models through input clarification ensembling. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D

    Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., de las Casas, D., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., Lavaud, L. R., Lachaux, M.-A., Stock, P., Scao, T. L., Lavril, T., Wang, T., Lacroix, T., and Sayed, W. E. Mistral 7b, 2023. URL http...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    On large language models' hallucination with regard to known facts

    Jiang, C., Qi, B., Hong, X., Fu, D., Cheng, Y., Meng, F., Yu, M., Zhou, B., and Zhou, J. On large language models' hallucination with regard to known facts. In Duh, K., Gomez, H., and Bethard, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the A...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Language models (mostly) know what they know

    Kadavath, S., Conerly, T., Askell, A., Henighan, T., Drain, D., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., DasSarma, N., Tran-Johnson, E., et al. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05221

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Qasc: A dataset for question answering via sentence composition

    Khot, T., Clark, P., Guerquin, M., Jansen, P., and Sabharwal, A. Qasc: A dataset for question answering via sentence composition. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34 0 (05): 0 8082--8090, Apr. 2020. doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6319. URL https://ojs.aa...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    An attempt to unraveling token prediction refinement and identifying essential layers of large language models, 2025

    Kongmanee, J. An attempt to unraveling token prediction refinement and identifying essential layers of large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15054

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    RACE : Large-scale R e A ding comprehension dataset from examinations

    Lai, G., Xie, Q., Liu, H., Yang, Y., and Hovy, E. RACE : Large-scale R e A ding comprehension dataset from examinations. In Palmer, M., Hwa, R., and Riedel, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.\ 785--794, Copenh...

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Understanding and patching compositional reasoning in LLM s

    Li, Z., Jiang, G., Xie, H., Song, L., Lian, D., and Wei, Y. Understanding and patching compositional reasoning in LLM s. In Ku, L.-W., Martins, A., and Srikumar, V. (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pp.\ 9668--9688, Bangkok, Thailand,...

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Logiqa: a challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning

    Liu, J., Cui, L., Liu, H., Huang, D., Wang, Y., and Zhang, Y. Logiqa: a challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'20, 2021. ISBN 9780999241165

    2021

  12. [20]

    Pointer sentinel mixture models

    Merity, S., Xiong, C., Bradbury, J., and Socher, R. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Byj72udxe

    2017

  13. [21]

    Mistral-nemo-instruct-2407

    Mistral AI . Mistral-nemo-instruct-2407. https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Nemo-Instruct-2407, 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-18

    2024

  14. [22]

    Adversarial NLI : A new benchmark for natural language understanding

    Nie, Y., Williams, A., Dinan, E., Bansal, M., Weston, J., and Kiela, D. Adversarial NLI : A new benchmark for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Interpreting gpt: the logit lens, 2020

    nostalgebraist. Interpreting gpt: the logit lens, 2020. URL https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens

    2020

  16. [24]

    Getting closer to ai complete question answering: A set of prerequisite real tasks

    Rogers, A., Kovaleva, O., Downey, M., and Rumshisky, A. Getting closer to ai complete question answering: A set of prerequisite real tasks. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34 0 (05): 0 8722--8731, Apr. 2020. doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6398. URL http...

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Confident adaptive language modeling

    Schuster, T., Fisch, A., Gupta, J., Dehghani, M., Bahri, D., Tran, V., Tay, Y., and Metzler, D. Confident adaptive language modeling. In Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., and Oh, A. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35...

    2022

  18. [26]

    C ommonsense QA : A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge

    Talmor, A., Herzig, J., Lourie, N., and Berant, J. C ommonsense QA : A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Burstein, J., Doran, C., and Solorio, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Com...

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Investigating acceleration of LL a MA inference by enabling intermediate layer decoding via instruction tuning with LITE '

    Varshney, N., Chatterjee, A., Parmar, M., and Baral, C. Investigating acceleration of LL a MA inference by enabling intermediate layer decoding via instruction tuning with LITE '. In Duh, K., Gomez, H., and Bethard, S. (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Ling...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Ubench: Benchmarking uncertainty in large language models with multiple choice questions, 2024

    Wang, X., Zhang, Z., Li, Q., Chen, G., Hu, M., li, Z., Luo, B., Gao, H., Han, Z., and Wang, H. Ubench: Benchmarking uncertainty in large language models with multiple choice questions, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12784

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Logitlens4llms: Extending logit lens analysis to modern large language models

    Wang, Z. Logitlens4llms: Extending logit lens analysis to modern large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11667, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11667

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    F., and Gardner, M

    Welbl, J., Liu, N. F., and Gardner, M. Crowdsourcing multiple choice science questions. In Derczynski, L., Xu, W., Ritter, A., and Baldwin, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text, pp.\ 94--106, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 2017. Association f...

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Do llamas work in E nglish? on the latent language of multilingual transformers

    Wendler, C., Veselovsky, V., Monea, G., and West, R. Do llamas work in E nglish? on the latent language of multilingual transformers. In Ku, L.-W., Martins, A., and Srikumar, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vo...

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    D ee BERT : Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference

    Xin, J., Tang, R., Lee, J., Yu, Y., and Lin, J. D ee BERT : Dynamic early exiting for accelerating BERT inference. In Jurafsky, D., Chai, J., Schluter, N., and Tetreault, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.\ 2...

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    H ella S wag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Korhonen, A., Traum, D., and M \`a rquez, L

    Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., and Choi, Y. H ella S wag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Korhonen, A., Traum, D., and M \`a rquez, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp.\ 4791--4...

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.