Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Logit-Contribution Scoring Identifies Non-Literal Retrieval Heads

Aryo Pradipta Gema, Beatrice Alex, Pasquale Minervini · Jul 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them. Identifying which attention heads perform this synthesis matters for interpreting long-context model behavior. Yet existing detectors miss these heads by construction: they reward heads whose attended token matches the generated token, a literal-copy criterion that captures where a head reads but not what it writes through its output-value (OV) circuit, the very mechanism that carries non-literal retrieval. We introduce Logit-Contribution Scoring (LOCOS), a write-aware detector that scores each head by the projection of its OV-circuit output onto the answer-token unembedding direction, contrasting needle and off-needle source positions in a single forward pass. Across three model families (Qwen3, Gemma-3, OLMo-3.1), mean-ablating the top LOCOS heads on the NoLiMa non-literal retrieval benchmark collapses ROUGE-L at lower head counts than prior attention-based detections; on Qwen3-8B, ablating 50 heads drives ROUGE-L from 0.401 to 0.000 while the strongest baseline still retains 0.292. The selected heads are retrieval-specific: parametric recall and arithmetic reasoning stay at baseline under the same ablation. On Qwen3-8B, the same ablation also drops MuSiQue from 0.55 to 0.08 and BABI-Long from 0.62 to 0.20, while a random-heads control stays within 0.05 of baseline.

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 paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them."

Reported Metrics

partial

Recall, Rouge

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Across three model families (Qwen3, Gemma-3, OLMo-3.1), mean-ablating the top LOCOS heads on the NoLiMa non-literal retrieval benchmark collapses ROUGE-L at lower head counts than prior attention-based detections; on Qwen3-8B, ablating 50 heads drives ROUGE-L from 0.401 to 0.000 while the strongest baseline still retains 0.292."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

recallrouge

Research Brief

Metadata summary

In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them.

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

Key Takeaways

  • In long-context use, large language models frequently synthesize answers from the meaning of a relevant context span rather than literally copy-pasting them.
  • Identifying which attention heads perform this synthesis matters for interpreting long-context model behavior.
  • Yet existing detectors miss these heads by construction: they reward heads whose attended token matches the generated token, a literal-copy criterion that captures where a head reads but not what it writes through its output-value (OV) circuit, the very mechanism that carries non-literal retrieval.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • 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

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce Logit-Contribution Scoring (LOCOS), a write-aware detector that scores each head by the projection of its OV-circuit output onto the answer-token unembedding direction, contrasting needle and off-needle source positions in a…
  • Across three model families (Qwen3, Gemma-3, OLMo-3.1), mean-ablating the top LOCOS heads on the NoLiMa non-literal retrieval benchmark collapses ROUGE-L at lower head counts than prior attention-based detections; on Qwen3-8B, ablating 50…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Across three model families (Qwen3, Gemma-3, OLMo-3.1), mean-ablating the top LOCOS heads on the NoLiMa non-literal retrieval benchmark collapses ROUGE-L at lower head counts than prior attention-based detections; on Qwen3-8B, ablating 50…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: recall, rouge

Related Papers

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