Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Cognitive Fatigue in Autoregressive Transformers: Formalization and Measurement

Riju Marwah, Ritvik Garimella, Vishal Pallagani, Atishay Jain, Michael Stewart, Amit Sheth · May 29, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy. Despite the prevalence of these failures, practitioners lack online diagnostics to detect them in real-time as they occur. We formalize this degradation as cognitive fatigue, a measurable generation-time state characterized by decay in attention to the original prompt, representational drift, and entropy miscalibration. We introduce the Fatigue Index (FI), a lightweight, model-agnostic diagnostic that aggregates these three signals under explicit axioms (monotonicity, boundedness, interpretability) enabling reliable runtime monitoring. Across nine models (1B-13B parameters), FI trajectories exhibit structured temporal dynamics, predict task degradation (AUROC = 0.95) and repetition (Spearman rho = 0.94), and reveal non-monotonic scaling behavior: instruction-tuned models below 3B exhibit faster collapse than base models, with this trend reversing at 7B. Stress analyses further show that FI onset accelerates under longer contexts, middle-positioned evidence, and reduced numerical precision. These results establish cognitive fatigue as a coherent and measurable phenomenon, and position FI as a principled tool for runtime reliability monitoring in production LLM systems.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Long Horizon tasks

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Long-horizon tasks
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Autoregressive language models frequently degrade during long-horizon generation, producing repetitive text, losing instruction adherence, and exhibiting unstable entropy.
  • Despite the prevalence of these failures, practitioners lack online diagnostics to detect them in real-time as they occur.
  • We formalize this degradation as cognitive fatigue, a measurable generation-time state characterized by decay in attention to the original prompt, representational drift, and entropy miscalibration.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.