A pre-registered REBUS analog fails in two instruct models for reasons its controls reveal
Akanksha Gupta
Model welfare evals often treat a 0–100 self-report as a state. I pre-registered a REBUS-shaped residual operator on Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, with an accept rule locked before the run: diversity up, dissolution up ≥10, inflation within 5, and an entropy-matched temperature control that must not copy the rise. Both reject. Qwen’s dissolution score moves the wrong way. Llama’s write looks like a hit (+11) until T=1.6 reaches 58 with no intervention. On these models the Likert tracks tokenizer integer attractors; it is not a readout of the residual.
The main issue in this report is that it assumes that its audience is already familiar with REBUS.
I would start by adding a section that explains what REBUS is and its potential relevance for AI welfare when applied to AI systems. A few prompt examples would also help.
The methods and results section report a variety of non-standard metrics that are not clearly defined. I would suggest focusing on a few, well-defined metrics.
The control structure is the contribution and it is excellent.
Fix the abstract so the thesis leads the numbers.
Raise and past one greedy completion per item, and find budget for the 14 to 15 run, since without it your own seam claim stays confounded with dose.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) A pre-registered REBUS analog fails in two instruct models for reasons its controls reveal
},
author={
Akanksha Gupta
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


