Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

3, 7, 14, 17, 42: Instruction Tuning Installs and Sharpens Number-Choice Heuristics in Language Models

Summary

A new study measures language models' number preferences without sampling error, revealing that instruction tuning makes distributions less uniform and installs round-number avoidance while sharpening endpoint avoidance. The heuristics partially align with human number-choice theories.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Samar Ansari
3, 7, 14, 17, 42: Instruction Tuning Installs and Sharpens Number-Choice Heuristics in Language Models
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 26 Oct 2026]

Title:3, 7, 14, 17, 42: Instruction Tuning Installs and Sharpens Number-Choice Heuristics in Language Models

View a PDF of the paper titled 3, 7, 14, 17, 42: Instruction Tuning Installs and Sharpens Number-Choice Heuristics in Language Models, by Samar Ansari

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:We measure, without sampling error, the probability a language model assigns to each integer from 1 to N when asked for a random number. For a fixed prompt the model defines one probability vector, which we compute by summing over each integer's scored spellings rather than estimate by sampling, removing the noise that limits earlier studies [1, 4]. We evaluate 18 open-weight model lines at five ranges up to N = 100, under 29 decoding configurations, on two inference stacks; 15 of them have matched base and instruction-tuned checkpoints that both give usable answers. Instruction tuning makes the distribution less uniform in all 15 pairs. It installs one heuristic, round-number avoidance, and sharpens another, endpoint avoidance. Base checkpoints do not avoid round numbers once the endpoints are removed from those sets; tuned checkpoints avoid them, multiples of 10 almost completely. Base checkpoints return the endpoints 1 and N at 0.30 to 0.60 of the interior rate; tuned checkpoints almost never return them. A preference for odd numbers is consistent across tuned checkpoints only at N = 100, where base checkpoints also show it weakly. Endpoint avoidance and the odd preference fit the account Kubovy and Psotka [6] proposed for human number choice; round-number avoidance is not part of that account, and the midpoint avoidance it predicts is essentially absent, with one slight exception at N = 100. Tuning does not install a new favourite integer shared across models: above N = 10 no modal integer is shared by more than 42 percent of tuned conditions, and P (17) rises in 10 of 15 pairs and falls in 5. The concentration is present in the model's own distribution: at temperature 1.0, nucleus truncation at top-p 0.95 adds a median of 0.035 to the total variation distance.

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.36178 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.36178v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.36178

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Mohammad Samar Ansari Ph.D. [view email] [v1] Mon, 26 Oct 2026 19:12:46 UTC (132 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled 3, 7, 14, 17, 42: Instruction Tuning Installs and Sharpens Number-Choice Heuristics in Language Models, by Samar Ansari

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Instruction tuning reduces uniformity in number-choice distributions across all 15 matched base/tuned model pairs.
  • Tuned models avoid round numbers (especially multiples of 10) and endpoints (1 and N) more strongly than base models.
  • A preference for odd numbers appears consistently only at N=100, with base models showing it weakly.
  • Tuning does not install a shared favorite integer; modal consistency is low above N=10.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.