Don't Ask: Understanding What Numeric Self-Reports Measure in Language Models
cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-03-19
Updated: 2026-10-10
Comments: 41 pages, 30 figures, 18 tables. Replaces the preprint "Quantitative Introspection in Language Models: Tracking Emotive States Across Conversation" with an extended, revised study: new title; 8 models (previously 1 in depth, 4 in less detail); 100 conversations (40 previous, 60 new); probe readouts before and after the rating question (previously only after); new controls; revised conclusions
Code: https://github.com/mneuronico/concept-probe
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Language models are often asked to rate their internal states with a number, but it is unclear how reliable this measure is.
Terminology
Abstract
Language models are often asked to rate their internal states with a number, but it is unclear how reliable this measure is. We train probes for four affective concepts (wellbeing, interest, focus and impulsivity) in eight instruction-tuned models to track these states over multi-turn conversations. We compare each probe's score with a numeric self-report of the same state, elicited at every turn. We find that rating questions displace the probed state, and that the rating is only weakly coupled with the probe score before the question but tracks the post-question probe much more strongly. Steering experiments suggest that models use the affective directions to inform ratings, but that relationship is not specific: ratings are associated with other concepts' probes as much as with their own, and change little when the question is about the user. Finally, neither the pre-question coupling nor concept specificity improves with scale (1B-27B). We warn about the effect a question can have on the internal states one is asking about, and caution against numeric self-report as a reliable measure of those states.
Sources
- Consistently Simulating Human Personas with Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning
- Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes
- Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction
- Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspection
- Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision
- Examining Identity Drift in Conversations of LLM Agents
- Inducing anxiety in large language models can induce bias
- Does It Make Sense to Speak of Introspection in Large Language Models?
- NeuroFilter: Activation-Based Guardrails for Privacy-Conscious LLM Agents
- Linear Personality Probing and Steering in LLMs: A Big Five Study
- Gemma 3 Technical Report
- A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Models
- The Llama 3 Herd of Models
- Language Models Represent Space and Time
- DebiNet: Debiasing Linear Models with Nonlinear Overparameterized Neural Networks
- Machine Psychology
- The Personality Illusion: Revealing Dissociation Between Self-Reports & Behavior in LLMs
- Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench
- Simulated Self-Assessment in Large Language Models: A Psychometric Approach to AI Self-Efficacy
- Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know
Related papers
- MAVEN-T: Reinforced Heterogeneous Distillation for Real-Time Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction
- Model Discovery Agent: LLM-assisted Bayesian experiment design for data-efficient discovery of mechanistic world models
- Agents' Last Exam
- The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
- MindHelper: Closed-Loop Embodied Mental-State Reasoning for Precision Intervention
- Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems