Do Language Models Consistently Encode the Current Year?

A consistent concept of the current time is important for temporal reasoning, yet how language models represent the current time is not well understood. We contribute two tasks that probe the current year in conceptually distinct ways: an associative task, which infers the current year from verb tense, and a declarative task, which directly queries for the current year. Both tasks estimate current years within one year of the post-training data cutoff of instruction-tuned language models. For base models, predictions on the associative task serve as a strong proxy for the pre-training data cutoff, with an average error of only 10 months across 13 models. However, their internal mechanisms diverge: the associative task uses mechanisms similar to factual recall, while the declarative task lacks consistent causal pathways. This divergence poses a challenge for updating the current year in language models. None of prompting, SFT, or weight editing succeed in shifting the associative and declarative years simultaneously. Prompting updates the declarative year (94.6% success across 351 target years) but leaves the associative year nearly unchanged (1.7% success). Year-shifted SFT also fails to shift the associative year, matching the target year in only one of eight models. Weight editing, while effective for both tasks individually, does not generalize across both. Overall, our results show that the current year is not consistently encoded in language models: The associative notion, deeply ingrained in linguistic structures learned in pre-training, uses different causal mechanisms and resists the same modifications that easily shift the declarative notion learned in post-training.

Why Larger Models Learn More: Effects of Capacity, Interference, and Rare-Task Retention

Larger models learn tasks smaller models do not. What drives this phenomenon? We develop a simple phenomenological argument that power-law scaling already suggests that a larger model will be able to learn a part of the data distribution that a smaller model fails to learn, even with infinite training data. To validate this claim and identify its causes, we study the effects of model scaling on a synthetic setup consisting of a mixture of tasks that show monotonic scaling curves. The results point to a data-induced competition over resources (neurons). Specifically, smaller models allocate their neurons to high frequency or low complexity tasks, and so they learn solutions that perform poorly on rare and complex tasks. Moreover, this happens even when solutions capable of expressing the desired task exist. We then assess how a larger model circumvents this data-centric bottleneck, finding that it traces to a reduced interference mechanism: larger models can allocate enough resources to common tasks that the gradient updates for those tasks become weak, which means that they do not overwrite rare-task features as they slowly accumulate. Finally, to further validate these claims, we pretrain OLMo models (4M to 4B parameters) on novel tasks of varying frequency and complexity. The results mirror those from our synthetic data experiments: only the larger OLMo models learn the infrequent and complex tasks, and these larger models embed more task features in their representations and show less gradient interference between tasks. Overall, we offer a data-centric account of why larger models learn tasks that smaller models fail to. This helps explain why larger models are better in practice, and it can inform practical questions concerning model sizing and training data mixtures.

PreFT: Prefill-only finetuning for efficient inference

Large language models can now be personalised efficiently at scale using parameter efficient finetuning methods (PEFTs), but serving user-specific PEFTs harms throughput, even with specialised kernels and memory management techniques. This is because, theoretically and empirically, a mismatch exists between prefill (processing a large number of tokens at once) and decode (generating a single token autoregressively): the latter has far lower throughput when serving multiple adapters. Rather than optimising performance relative to parameter count, for efficient multi-adapter serving, we instead ought to optimise performance relative to serving throughput. We therefore propose PreFT (Prefill-only Finetuning), wherein we only apply the adapter to prefill tokens and discard it afterwards. PreFT significantly increases throughput with minimal effect on performance. We develop and release an efficient implementation of two prefill-only PEFTs, LoRA and ReFT, on the vLLM inference engine. We first show that serving multi-user PreFTs is more efficient than traditional PEFTs ($1.9\times$ the throughput when serving $512$ adapters on Llama 3.1 70B). Then, we compare the performance of prefill-only vs. all-token adapters on a variety of supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning tasks with LMs at varying scales. On SFT, we observe that the evaluation loss of PreFTs is higher than PEFTs, but can be compensated by increasing rank with nearly no reduction in throughput. On RL, we consistently find that PreFTs approach parity with standard PEFTs. Together, this work validates prefill-only adaptation of LLMs as a more favourable accuracy-throughput tradeoff than existing PEFTs for personalised serving.

A paradox of AI fluency

How much does a user's skill with AI shape what AI actually delivers for them? This question is critical for users, AI product builders, and society at large, but it remains underexplored. Using a richly annotated sample of 27K transcripts from WildChat-4.8M, we show that fluent users take on more complex tasks than novices and adopt a fundamentally different interactional mode: they iterate collaboratively with the AI, refining goals and critically assessing outputs, whereas novices take a passive stance. These differences lead to a paradox of AI fluency: fluent users experience more failures than novices -- but their failures tend to be visible (a direct consequence of their engagement), they are more likely to lead to partial recovery, and they occur alongside greater success on complex tasks. Novices, by contrast, more often experience invisible failures: conversations that appear to end successfully but in fact miss the mark. Taken together, these results reframe what success with AI depends on. Individuals should adopt a stance of active engagement rather than passive acceptance. AI product builders should recognize that they are designing not just model behavior but user behavior; encouraging deep engagement, rather than friction-free experiences, will lead to more success overall. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-fluency-outcomes

Synthetic Data for any Differentiable Target

What are the limits of controlling language models via synthetic training data? We develop a reinforcement learning (RL) primitive, the Dataset Policy Gradient (DPG), which can precisely optimize synthetic data generators to produce a dataset of targeted examples. When used for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) of a target model, these examples cause the target model to do well on a differentiable metric of our choice. Our approach achieves this by taking exact data attribution via higher-order gradients and using those scores as policy gradient rewards. We prove that this procedure closely approximates the true, intractable gradient for the synthetic data generator. To illustrate the potential of DPG, we show that, using only SFT on generated examples, we can cause the target model's LM head weights to (1) embed a QR code, (2) embed the pattern $\texttt{67}$, and (3) have lower $\ell^2$ norm. We additionally show that we can cause the generator to (4) rephrase inputs in a new language and (5) produce a specific UUID, even though neither of these objectives is conveyed in the generator's input prompts. These findings suggest that DPG is a powerful and flexible technique for shaping model properties using only synthetic training examples.

Document Optimization for Black-Box Retrieval via Reinforcement Learning

Document expansion is a classical technique for improving retrieval quality, and is attractive since it shifts computation offline, avoiding additional query-time processing. However, when applied to modern retrievers, it has been shown to degrade performance, often introducing noise that obfuscates the discriminative signal. We recast document expansion as a document optimization problem: a language model or a vision language model is fine-tuned to transform documents into representations that better align with the expected query distribution under a target retriever, using GRPO with the retriever's ranking improvements as rewards. This approach requires only black-box access to retrieval ranks, and is applicable across single-vector, multi-vector and lexical retrievers. We evaluate our approach on code retrieval and visual document retrieval (VDR) tasks. We find that learned document transformations yield retrieval gains and in many settings enable smaller, more efficient retrievers to outperform larger ones. For example, applying document optimization to OpenAI text-embedding-3-small model improves nDCG5 on code (58.7 to 66.8) and VDR (53.3 to 57.6), even slightly surpassing the 6.5X more expensive OpenAI text-embedding-3-large model (66.3 on code; 57.0 on VDR). When retriever weights are accessible, document optimization is often competitive with fine-tuning, and in most settings their combination performs best, improving Jina-ColBERT-V2 from 55.8 to 63.3 on VDR and from 48.6 to 61.8 on code retrieval.

Invisible failures in human-AI interactions

AI systems fail silently far more often than they fail visibly. In a large-scale quantitative analysis of human-AI interactions from the WildChat dataset, we find that 78% of AI failures are invisible: something went wrong but the user gave no overt indication that there was a problem. These invisible failures cluster into eight archetypes that help us characterize where and how AI systems are failing to meet users' needs. In addition, the archetypes show systematic co-occurrence patterns indicating higher-level failure types. To address the question of whether these archetypes will remain relevant as AI systems become more capable, we also assess failures for whether they are primarily interactional or capability-driven, finding that 91% involve interactional dynamics, and we estimate that 94% of such failures would persist even with a more capable model. Finally, we illustrate how the archetypes help us to identify systematic and variable AI limitations across different usage domains. Overall, we argue that our invisible failure taxonomy can be a key component in reliable failure monitoring for product developers, scientists, and policy makers. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/bigspinai/bigspin-invisible-failure-archetypes

Counterfactual Simulation Training for Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

Inspecting Chain-of-Thought reasoning is among the most common means of understanding why an LLM produced its output. But well-known problems with CoT faithfulness severely limit what insights can be gained from this practice. In this paper, we introduce a training method called Counterfactual Simulation Training (CST), which aims to improve CoT faithfulness by rewarding CoTs that enable a simulator to accurately predict a model's outputs over counterfactual inputs. We apply CST in two settings: (1) CoT monitoring with cue-based counterfactuals, to detect when models rely on spurious features, reward hack, or are sycophantic, and (2) counterfactual simulation over generic model-based counterfactuals, to encourage models to produce more faithful, generalizable reasoning in the CoT. Experiments with models up to 235B parameters show that CST can substantially improve monitor accuracy on cue-based counterfactuals (by 35 accuracy points) as well as simulatability over generic counterfactuals (by 2 points). We further show that: (1) CST outperforms prompting baselines, (2) rewriting unfaithful CoTs with an LLM is 5x more efficient than RL alone, (3) faithfulness improvements do not generalize to dissuading cues (as opposed to persuading cues), and (4) larger models do not show more faithful CoT out of the box, but they do benefit more from CST. These results suggest that CST can improve CoT faithfulness in general, with promising applications for CoT monitoring. Code for experiments in this paper is available at https://github.com/peterbhase/counterfactual-simulation-training

Transcoder Adapters for Reasoning-Model Diffing

While reasoning models are increasingly ubiquitous, the effects of reasoning training on a model's internal mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this work, we introduce transcoder adapters, a technique for learning an interpretable approximation of the difference in MLP computation before and after fine-tuning. We apply transcoder adapters to characterize the differences between Qwen2.5-Math-7B and its reasoning-distilled variant, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B. Learned adapters are faithful to the target model's internal computation and next-token predictions. When evaluated on reasoning benchmarks, adapters match the reasoning model's response lengths and typically recover 50-90% of the accuracy gains from reasoning fine-tuning. Adapter features are sparsely activating and interpretable. When examining adapter features, we find that only ~8% have activating examples directly related to reasoning behaviors. We deeply study one such behavior -- the production of hesitation tokens (e.g., "wait"). Using attribution graphs, we trace hesitation to only ~2.4% of adapter features (5.6k total) performing one of two functions. These features are necessary and sufficient for producing hesitation tokens; removing them reduces response length, often without affecting accuracy. Overall, our results provide insight into reasoning training and suggest transcoder adapters may be useful for studying fine-tuning more broadly.

Language models as tools for investigating the distinction between possible and impossible natural languages

We argue that language models (LMs) have strong potential as investigative tools for probing the distinction between possible and impossible natural languages and thus uncovering the inductive biases that support human language learning. We outline a phased research program in which LM architectures are iteratively refined to better discriminate between possible and impossible languages, supporting linking hypotheses to human cognition.