We provide evidence that language models can detect, localize and, to a degree, verbalize the difference between a-semantic perturbations applied to their activations. More precisely, we either (a) apply dropout or (b) add Gaussian noise to them, at a target sentence. We then ask a multiple-choice question such as "Which of the previous sentences was perturbed?" or "Which perturbation was applied?". We test eight models from the Gemma, Llama, Mistral, Olmo, Qwen and Seed families, with sizes between 8B and 36B, all of which can easily detect and localize the perturbations, often with perfect accuracy. To investigate the mechanisms, we find that Olmo models develop this capacity during pre-training, and we rule out the hypothesis that perturbed sentences simply have lower log-likelihood. Notably, the zero-shot accuracy of Qwen3-32B and Qwen3.8-27B in identifying which perturbation was applied correlates with the perturbation strength. While this task proves hard for the remaining models, most of them can learn, when taught in context, to distinguish between dropout and Gaussian noise. Interestingly, Qwen3-32B and Qwen3.8-27B learn worse when supervised with wrong labels, again suggesting a prior towards the correct ones. Because dropout is used as a training-regularization technique, while Gaussian noise is sometimes added during inference, we discuss the possibility of a data-agnostic "training awareness" signal and the implications for AI safety.

翻译：暂无翻译