Zhengzhong Tu

The rapid growth of the large language model (LLM) ecosystem raises a critical question: are seemingly diverse models truly independent? Shared pretraining data, distillation, and alignment pipelines can induce hidden behavioral dependencies, latent entanglement, that undermine multi-model systems such as LLM-as-a-judge pipelines and ensemble verification, which implicitly assume independent signals. In practice, this manifests as correlated reasoning patterns and synchronized failures, where apparent agreement reflects shared error modes rather than independent validation. To address this, we develop a statistical framework for auditing behavioral entanglement among black-box LLMs. Our approach introduces a multi-resolution hierarchy that characterizes the joint failure manifold through two information-theoretic metrics: (i) a Difficulty-Weighted Behavioral Entanglement Index (BEI), which amplifies synchronized failures on easy tasks, and (ii) a Cumulative Information Gain (CIG) metric, which captures directional alignment in erroneous responses. Through experiments on 18 LLMs from six model families, we identify statistically significant behavioral entanglement. Such behavioral dependence is associated with judge over-endorsement bias on a disjoint MMLU-Pro evaluation set ($\rho=0.508$ for BEI and $\rho=0.520$ for CIG; $p<0.01$). The association further transfers to the MATH-500 benchmark ($\rho=0.441$ for BEI and $\rho=0.457$ for CIG; $p<0.05$), providing cross-benchmark evidence that the identified dependency structure generalizes beyond the data and response format used for its estimation. Finally, we demonstrate a practical use case of entanglement through de-entangled verifier ensemble reweighting, achieving 3.5 and 2.6 percentage-point gains in accuracy and precision, respectively, over majority voting.

We propose and test the **LLM Brain Rot Hypothesis**: continual exposure to *junk web text* induces lasting cognitive decline in large language models (LLMs). To unveil junk effects, we designed a novel controlled experiment on real Twitter/X corpora, by constructing junk and reverse-controlled datasets via two orthogonal operationalizations: **M1** (engagement degree) and **M2** (semantic quality), with matched token scale and training operations across conditions. Compared to the control group, continual pre-training of 4 LLMs on the junk dataset causes non-trivial declines (Hedges' $g>0.3$) on reasoning, long-context understanding, safety, and inflating "dark traits" (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism). The gradual mixtures of junk and control datasets also yield dose-response cognition decay: for example, under M1, ARC-Challenge with Chain-of-Thought drops $72.1 \rightarrow 57.2$ and RULER-CWE $83.7 \rightarrow 52.3$ as junk ratio rises from $0$% to $100$%. Error forensics reveal several key insights. First, we identify *thought-skipping as the primary lesion in reasoning*: models increasingly truncate or skip chains. Second, partial but incomplete healing is observed: scaling instruction tuning and clean continual pre-training improve the declined cognition, yet cannot restore baseline capability, suggesting persistent representational drift rather than format mismatch. Finally, we discover that the popularity, a non-semantic metric, of a tweet is a better indicator of the Brain Rot effect than the length in M1. Together, the results provide significant, multi-perspective evidence that \textit{social effects of data could be a causal driver of LLM capability decay in continual pre-training}, thereby motivating routine "cognitive health checks" for deployed and evolving LLMs.