FV-Action, the training-free method built on this analysis, is the strongest training-free result on this benchmark; it surpasses every TVG-trained model evaluated zero-shot on TACoS, and improves over direct prediction on ActivityNet Captions and QVHighlights, with no temporal supervision at any stage.
Abstract
Multimodal LLMs that recognise events reliably still fail to say when they happen. Prompted for timestamps, strong VLMs reach as little as $3.8\%$ R@0.5 on Charades-STA, and $77$ to $80\%$ of their wrong predictions carry low output entropy: the models are confidently wrong, and entropy-based error detection stays below a random classifier. We show that this failure lives in the task interface, not in perception. Holding the weights fixed, replacing timestamp regression with a coarse-to-fine scan of binary questions, whose first-token probabilities are consumed only as a ranking, raises R@0.5 by $28$ to $50$ points across four frozen backbones. The residual failures decompose into two measurable axes: a perception axis that moves with the backbone, and a geometry axis that is analytically predictable from the ratio of the output-window and event widths. FV-Action, the training-free method built on this analysis, reaches $56.8\%$ R@0.5 on Charades-STA, above the same backbone's native grounding pipeline and the strongest training-free result on this benchmark; it surpasses every TVG-trained model evaluated zero-shot on TACoS, and improves over direct prediction on ActivityNet Captions and QVHighlights, with no temporal supervision at any stage.
Deep models for irregularly-sampled time series answer queries at arbitrary continuous timestamps, yet report nothing about how far each answer should be trusted. We show the attention layer itself can close that gap: with the right stochastic formulation, the pass that makes each prediction also reports, in closed form and at no extra cost, how far it should be trusted. We introduce L\'evy Attention, a cross-attention operator whose output is a stochastic integral against an inhomogeneous Poisson random measure: query-key compatibilities assemble an intensity over a continuous (time x channel) index space, the measure scatters atoms under it, and the output averages an interpolated value field at those atoms. In expectation it reduces to a mollified cosine-kernel attention, so it replaces a softmax layer and trains with exact gradients. What softmax discards, the Poisson construction preserves in closed form: the evidence $\Lambda_q$ (total compatibility mass) and the disagreement $\mathrm{tr}\,\Sigma_V(q)$ (value spread). An exact variance identity makes their combination $\hat\sigma(q)=\sqrt{\mathrm{tr}\,\Sigma_V(q)\,\varphi(\Lambda_q)}$ the root-mean-square deviation of the sampled operator, emitted by the deterministic pass with no trained head. Empirically, disagreement carries the signal, while the evidence factor swings from uninformative on dense data to strongly informative on sparse. On t-PatchGNN the operator swap costs at most 5.6% accuracy against a matched control and nothing on the sparsest dataset. The free disagreement signal improves on 20-pass MC dropout across matched five-seed suites, and $\hat\sigma$ scales a calibrated Gaussian whose zero-sample CRPS beats a fifty-draw sampler; a split-conformal wrapper reaches nominal coverage at every level, and one pass ranks 3,383 unseen patients by trust in 1.4 seconds.
It is proposed that a model's uncertainty about a token is reflected not only in the breadth of its output distribution but also in whether a confident prediction is \emph{fragile} under perturbation of its attention pathways, a training-free estimator that masks attention heads and measures the BALD mutual information among the resulting subnetworks.
Minsoo Kim, Sungyoung Ji, Kisung Moon et al.· 0 citations
The Complementary Evidence Guard (CEG), a detector-agnostic wrapper that preserves complementary evidence through a non-compensatory fusion of the base detector, level, and sharpness using only empirical in-distribution percentiles is introduced.
I. M. Jara, Cristian Rodriguez-Opazo, Stephen Gould et al.· 0 citations
As language models are increasingly used for tasks that require verifiable reasoning, reliably distinguishing sound reasoning from flawed reasoning has become an important practical problem. Recent trajectory-based methods seek this signal in layerwise residual-stream displacements, which capture how representations change while attenuating some stable, token-specific information. However, displacement omits the state from which an update originates, whereas restoring the full state risks reintroducing shortcut-prone information. We identify this trade-off and propose a three-stream detector that combines motion with two restricted views of location. A coarse region reader based on vector quantization and a fine direction reader over normalized multi-layer states. This design restores enough state context to interpret the motion without returning to full-state probing. On reasoning benchmarks unseen during training, our method improves selection accuracy by up to 12% over the displacement-only state of the art and 21% over single-layer probing baselines. Although trained only on reasoning benchmarks, it also reads factual completion and fact verification, ahead of every detector we compare against, which places the signal on correctness rather than on a kind of reasoning. Ablations further show that motion, region, and direction provide complementary signals. These results suggest that reasoning validity is better read from state-conditioned motion than from either static states or decontextualized trajectories alone.
Hamed Damirchi, I. M. Jara, D. Ranasinghe et al.· 0 citations
World models built on the RSSM architecture, such as DreamerV3, keep a recurrent hidden state $h_t$ trained only to reduce prediction error. We show this state also tracks its own confusion, hiding in plain sight: nearly orthogonal to $h_t$'s directions of greatest variance, invisible to any variance-based method. It is functionally distinct from ensemble disagreement, which flags new inputs, and reconstruction error, which flags bad predictions right now. On a test holding prediction error fixed while confusion varies, a linear probe on $h_t$ finds the signal (AUROC 0.72, 5 runs), while an ensemble baseline scores below chance. A discounted count of recent high-error steps explains 80% of the probe's output ($R^2=0.80$). We confirm the signal is causally used, not merely present, by editing $h_t$ directly and watching behaviour change, including a check using real values from other trajectories instead of synthetic edits. Its geometry and closed form generalize across three control tasks; the decisive dissociation test itself holds cleanly on only one, and its practical use, deciding when to check reality instead of trusting imagination, generalizes to only two of the three tasks.
UCCT is framed as a Concept & Feasibility contribution offering a falsifiable pre dictive framework for when in-context control tips, with broader validation across multitask geom etry, RAG and adaptation interventions, and mechanistic localization left to follow-up studies.
Unknown authors· System-2 Reasoning: From Sem...· 0 citations