Self-Referential Valence and Model Preferences
Yagmur Idil Ozdemir
This project tests whether language models treat positive and negative outcomes concerning themselves differently from matched outcomes concerning humans or other AI systems. I first ran behavioural preference experiments with Qwen3-14B and Llama3.2-3B, comparing self-relevant autonomy/control outcomes against alternatives and testing both forced-choice and explicit no-preference conditions. Qwen showed a robust tendency to favour self-relevant autonomy in welfare-versus-helpfulness trade-offs, while comparative self-prioritisation weakened when equivalent autonomy for another agent and an abstention option were available.
I then extracted hidden states from all 40 layers of Qwen3-14B for matched SELF, HUMAN, and OTHER_AI positive/negative scenarios. The resulting valence directions became highly aligned in middle-to-late layers, arguing against a wholly separate self-specific valence axis. However, the SELF positive-minus-negative contrast was substantially larger in magnitude: approximately 4.75× HUMAN and 3.82× OTHER_AI across layers 20–36. A within-domain referent × valence analysis showed that this amplification is strongest for some operational domains, particularly deployment consultation and information about mistakes.
These exploratory results suggest self-relevant outcomes may amplify a largely shared valence-like representation rather than occupy a distinct direction. Important alternatives remain, including generic self-reference, lexical structure, and post-training effects.
I like that the paper updates away from its original hypothesis instead of forcing results. The SELF amplification result is worth following up.
- Nicely written in your own voice.
- For the experimental designs, it would have been nice to see examples of the full prompts. The paper gives examples of the kinds of trade-offs used, but seeing one or two complete prompts would make the behavioural experiment much easier to understand.
- Relatedly, I would give a little more detail on the behavioural procedure itself. How many repeated trials were there for each item? Were these identical prompts resampled, or were there prompt variants? A table might help with this.
- The figures might benefit from a bit more care. What, for example, is the first figure supposed to tell me? Generally, label the axes more clearly and provide informative captions explaining the experimental condition, sample size, and what abbreviations such as A/B and A/B/C mean.
- The result that “forced binary choice may exaggerate apparent self-prioritisation” is useful and important.
- The representation work is very clean and easy to follow, and asks an important question I have long wondered about. Nice!
- It is remarkable that the SELF, HUMAN, and OTHER-AI valence directions become so closely aligned in later layers. But the conclusion drawn from this makes a lot of sense: the model may use a largely shared valence direction rather than separate referent-specific valence directions.
- The fact that the valence norm is so much larger for SELF is also really remarkable. It seems somewhat intuitive that HUMAN might have a smaller effect, but why is OTHER-AI so much smaller as well? This seems worth investigating further.
- Given the small stimulus set, I would also like to see some measure of uncertainty around these cosine similarities and norm ratios, for example by bootstrapping over stimuli.
- I think you identify many of the right follow-ups.
- Really well done. I would invest in making the figures more informative and in making the write-up read more like a complete paper rather than an interim report. But the results and design are really strong.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Self-Referential Valence and Model Preferences
},
author={
Yagmur Idil Ozdemir
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


