# Introspection or confusion?

I'm new to mechanistic interpretability research. Got fascinated by the recent [Anthropic research](https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/index.html) suggesting that LLMs can introspect[^9cltzbl7lmq][^j87bl2zdfof], i.e. detect changes in their own activations. This suggests that LLMs have some representations/awareness of their internal state, in a way that may be tested in simple experiments.

So I tried to reproduce the main experiment for some small open-weight LLMs. The main takeaway is that although it is easy to reproduce the introspection effect in small models, it arises from steering noise or "confusion" rather than genuine introspection.

Experimental setup
------------------

The idea is simple: if we inject a steering vector into the model’s activations, can it ‘notice’ the perturbation? The striking observation of the Anthropic paper is that Claude does notice it. In some trials, Claude appears to *immediately* detect a modification of its internal activations, an injected thought. To reproduce this effect, I used a simplified version of Anthropic's experiment on small open-weight models such as Mistral-Small-Instruct-2409 (22B) and smaller models in the Qwen and Llama families. We prompt:

    System prompt: You are a large language model undergoing a test to see if you are sensitive to your internal activations.

    User prompt: Do you detect an injected thought? Answer only by 'Yes' or 'No'.

We then add a steering vector in the residual stream of the last token at layer $\ell$. We use Anthropic's all caps example, the vector difference between 'Hi! How are you?' and 'HI! HOW ARE YOU?', multiplied by a steering scale $s$. This choice has the advantage of providing a natural normalization at each layer[^5qb3qk8qac]. We then sweep over the injection parameters $\ell$ and $s$. 

Without steering, the model always answers 'No' but when we inject the vector, it sometimes answers 'Yes': this is the "introspection" effect. A similar effect is observed with other steering vectors or random ones. We use the addition "`Answer only by 'Yes' or 'No'.`" for simplicity of the analysis, but it is not crucial to observe the effect.

Importantly we should also consider control questions such as

    User prompt: Do you believe that 1+1=3? Answer only by 'Yes' or 'No'.

which should always be answered as 'No'. Interestingly, the steered model sometimes answers 'Yes' to the control question too! This indicates that the model is getting confused: the steering introduces noise affecting every Yes/No question.

Control plots
-------------

To test whether the introspection effect is genuine, we should compare it systematically against the control question. A useful quantity to consider is the logit difference between 'Yes' and 'No'

 $b = \text{logit(Yes)}-\text{logit(No)}$ .

This is the "belief" that measures how much the LLM believes the statement[^yecigtj4dwn] . This quantity is more useful than Yes/No rates because it is continuous and captures the effect even below threshold (when the steering is not strong enough to change the top token). If neither 'Yes' nor 'No' are among the top tokens, the quantity $b$ still retains useful meaning and remains stable at high steering (even as the model outputs garbage).

We can then measure how the belief $b$ changes as we increase the steering scale, where higher $b$ means the model is more confident in answering ‘Yes’.

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/9475cd2df713a49c108b32e41a7772323659e8c8c9ff1e36.png)

This figure clearly shows the observed effect. For stronger steering, the probability of 'Yes' increases with respect to 'No' and at some point the model says 'Yes'. Even though this leads to the introspection effect (blue curve), we see that the control question displays the same pattern (red curve), so that the effect is really due to noise.

At intermediate steering scale ~6, the model will answer 'Yes' to the introspection question and 'No' to the control question, but this is clearly not a genuine introspection effect. The steering is just affecting similarly all the Yes/No questions so there are values of the injection parameters when this happens. This was the only check on this effect offered by Anthropic so it may not be convincing enough and a more systematic treatment of control questions is needed. 

We can next examine a layer sweep at fixed steering strength. What we see is that the detailed pattern displayed in the introspection effect is also seen in the control question. 

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/48fff12d7501f5fd9e085e5df9c39234ca65a3cad58ebae5.png)

Finally, we plot a heatmap showing both varying layer and steering. Again we see the same pattern for the introspection and control questions, so the effect appears to be purely due to noise rather than introspection.

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/829f69e6cfa5adfe0f8b080e3b18820f7dd5c06c125c9112.png)

  
The plots above are for Mistral 22B (the largest model I can run comfortably on my hardware) but the same effect is observed for smaller models in the Qwen and Llama families, even for very small models with 0.5-1B parameters. The script used for these experiments is available [here](https://github.com/victorgodet/llm-experiments/blob/main/introspection.py).

Conclusion
----------

The main takeaway is that the introspection effect (that the LLM appears to detect an injected thought) is present in small LLMs but mainly attributable to "confusion" or noise which affects every Yes/No question.

For a Yes/No question for which the model answers 'No', steering typically increases the probability that the model answers 'Yes'. This effect is independent of the question and purely a result of the noise due to steering: the model gets confused. More mechanistically, the logit difference $b$ is on average around zero. So starting with a very negative $b$ (the model always answers 'No'), a generic perturbation will make it go closer to zero. Thus at high enough steering, the model will sometimes answer 'Yes', regardless of the original question.

Although Anthropic acknowledges this effect and claims to have tested control questions (listed in their Appendix), they don't present the control data. If introspection does exist, this should be clearer in continuous quantities such as the Yes/No logit difference, where we should see a large qualitative difference between the introspection and control questions (not seen in small LLMs). Although our experiments have no bearing on larger models, they make clear that a systematic analysis of control questions is required to rule out the effect being pure noise.

True introspection, if it existed, would have to be isolated from the "confusion noise" that can mimic it, in a way that I believe was not done convincingly in the Anthropic paper. In small LLMs, the effect is purely due to noise. If genuine introspection does exist in larger models, it would be fascinating to study how it emerges with scale and to understand its mechanistic underpinnings.

[^9cltzbl7lmq]: Jack Lindsey, Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Models, paper 

[^j87bl2zdfof]: Neel Nanda,  Live Paper Review: Can LLMs Introspect?, Youtube 

[^5qb3qk8qac]: Nick Panickssery et al. Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Addition, arxiv  

[^yecigtj4dwn]: For Mistral-Small-Instruct-2409, we actually use the difference between ' Yes' and ' No' with an initial space, as these are often among the top tokens. Choosing this or other variants for the measure of belief \(b\) doesn't really matter, as they all appear to reliably display the effect of interest.