Skip to content

Where a Model Sends Its Own Repeated Token

Sep 2026 · 0 citations · 5 references
Computer Science

Abstract

Black-box model identification works by scoring a model's response to natural-language prompts. One line of work feeds models a degenerate input -- their own token, repeated -- to find a failure mode rather than an identity. We take that input and ask where the model goes when it does not. For each token t, read argmax p(. | t, t) in one forward pass; the result is a map on the whole vocabulary, with two halves. The first -- which tokens are fixed points -- is partially anticipated, and we report it as a failed estimand: the natural distance on it is 83% cardinality, separates a corpus manipulation by two bits in 3471 against a precision floor of zero, and attributes families at 0.5833. The second half, where the map sends tokens that are not fixed points, is unrecorded; the one paper holding those tokens logged them as a zero. Pairing on the source token removes the cardinality confound by construction (r from 0.9128 to -0.0932) and attributes families at 0.8333 -- twelve models scored against a pool of nineteen -- with chance 0.1389, across seven tokenizer groups and several corpora. Two nulls clear it: frequency-matched destinations agree at 0.1429, independent marginals at 0.0798. Family predicts agreement better than tokenizer (0.2031 against 0.1205), and recurrent architectures cluster at balanced accuracy 1.0 against a 0.7895 majority rate, or 0.90 once each model's dominant destination is excluded -- the figure we stand behind. We measure the robustness envelope: 8-bit weight rounding moves the map less than deduplicating the training corpus does (0.9004 against 0.6353, on one support), 4-bit destroys it (0.0098; 0.1812 at deployment granularity, so not a coarseness artefact), and the precision floor varies by model from 0.201 to 0.9778. All estimands and kill conditions were registered before the data, and the failed one is reported as fully as the surviving one.

View source

Similar papers

#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

Token Counts Are Not Model Lineage: A Frozen-Threshold Holdout Study of Black-Box LLM API Fingerprinting

A validity-gated result contract is introduced that distinguishes an observed dissimilarity from an uninformative measurement caused by missing usage data, rate limits, or endpoint policy, and validates token-count consistency as a fingerprint of a shared tokenization stack, but rejects its use as a standalone necessar...

Bolin Chen · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models

When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the guessing. Two model...

Arman Nik Khah · 0 citations
#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

AnyJev Technical Report

A typed decision is a choice among a fixed set of options, returned as a probability rather than as text. Systems that need typed decisions today use models trained for that purpose. This report describes AnyJev, which reads a typed decision from one prefill of a pretrained instruction-tuned language model. The readout...

Jia-Mu Zhang, Tian-Ze Yang, Yu-Cheng Shi et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Sep 24, 2026

Estimating suicide risk from text

A new language-processing tool could help identify the highest-risk individuals from natural language, enabling swifter interventions.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.