Be More Introspective
Ali Haider Khan, Harsh Puri, Fatehbir Singh Gill, Nidhish Pajni, Tanveer Singh
This project is an extension of the previous work done by
Lindsey (2026) [1]. Large Language Models can notice the
presence of injected concepts and can be aware of its
happening. They also demonstrate the ability to recall prior
representations and compare them with potential changes at a
later stage. It is found that some models can use their ability to
recall prior intentions in order to distinguish their own outputs
from artificial prefills. Here, in our project, we investigate the
introspective nature of LLMs. We have tried to reproduce the
results and extend them to a wider range of models. The
pipeline we adhered to begins with injecting representations of
known concepts in a model’s activations and measuring the
influence of those modifications on the model’s self-awareness
abilities.
Our
experiments
included
Qwen2.5-0.5B,
Qwen2.5-32B and Qwen2.5-1.5B, which are small to
medium-sized models and demonstrate moderate introspective
awareness. Overall, our results indicate that the self-awareness
nature is most of the time directly proportional to the size and
complexity of the models, as could be seen in the graphs later in
the report.
This paper is a partial replication of research on the capacity of LLMs to detect injected concepts. It would be improved by a clearer explanation of why the z-score is a good measure of performance in this task, and figures that more clearly bring out the most important aspects of the results.
I'm a bit hung up on the unsteered baseline. You report z of -0.23 / +1.43 / +2.18 across 0.5B / 1.5B / 32B with no injection at all, so the 32B baseline already clears your own z>2 separation threshold before you do anything to it.
Fix is cheap though: report steered-minus-unsteered deltas instead of raw z, and show the null distribution. I'd also push back on the vector itself e.g. ("Hi! How are you?" vs a shouted version) isn't really a concept, so I'm not sure this is the best example for testing introspection over semantic content. Lindsey uses semantic concepts, and porting that properly would give you a much stronger replication than what you have here.
The presentation makes it harder to check any of this. Section 4.1 says Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct but both figures under it are 1.5B plots, so the model carrying your headline has no figure anywhere. Figures 1/3 and 2/4 are duplicates with near-identical captions. Your LLM usage statement describes an LLM judge validated against human coders, but I don't (think I see it). That said, replicating this with open weights is genuinely useful, since the original is stuck behind closed models, and adding a norm-matched random-direction control also a nice add.
So it's generally good as an experiment, just the baseline is sort of iffy.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Be More Introspective
},
author={
Ali Haider Khan, Harsh Puri, Fatehbir Singh Gill, Nidhish Pajni, Tanveer Singh
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


