Organizations: Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University.
Abstract
Specialized attention heads dubbed induction heads (IHs) have been argued to underlie the remarkable in-context learning capabilities of modern language models; yet, a precise characterization of their emergence, especially in the context of language modeling, remains wanting. In this study, we investigate the relationship between statistical properties of the training data and IH formation in both natural and synthetic training data settings. We show that: (1) a simple equation combining batch size and context size predicts the point at which IHs form and that this emergence point is agnostic to model size; (2) surface bigram repetition frequency and reliability strongly affect the formation of IHs, and we find an effective decision boundary in terms of these two values; (3) local dependency with high bigram repetition frequency and reliability is sufficient for IH formation, but categoriality and the shape of the marginal distribution appear to modulate IH formation near the decision boundary.
Induction heads are attention circuits believed to underlie in-context learning in transformers, yet a precise characterization of the estimators they implement remains elusive. We study transformers trained on order-k Markov chains and identify two complementary smoothing mechanisms. First, at finite attention-weight scale, the circuit implements a soft context-matching estimator: it aggregates contributions from exact and partial context matches, weighted exponentially by their overlap, and induces a data-dependent interpolation across context orders analogous to Jelinek-Mercer smoothing. Second, a beginning-of-sequence (BOS) token induces additive pseudo-counts, recovering Dirichlet-style smoothing. We construct a disentangled transformer implementing both mechanisms and show that trained transformers recover the predicted attention patterns. Across settings where pseudo-count smoothing is optimal or lower-order contexts provide structured evidence, trained transformers match or outperform classical count-based baselines. Our results bridge mechanistic interpretability of induction heads with classical statistical smoothing, revealing that transformers learn to regularize in-context estimation rather than simply count.
Francesco D'Angelo, Oguz Kaan Yuksel, Swathi Shree Narashiman +1
Many of the thousands of attested languages share common configurations of features, creating a spectrum from typologically very rare (e.g., object-verb-subject word order) or impossible languages to very common combinations of features (e.g., subject-object-verb word order). One central question is under what conditions such typological tendencies can be predicted, and specifically whether the learning bias of language models (LMs) is sufficient to reproduce such patterns. In this study, we add one dimensionality to such analysis -- the learning scenario for LMs -- to explore its interaction with the inductive bias of LMs. Specifically, as a first study, we examine the effect of curriculum learning (CL), as a developmentally motivated learning scenario, i.e., starting with simpler sentences rather than randomly-ordered input. We expand existing LM-based exploration (El-Naggar et al., 2025a,b) with a simple CL variant and find that CL substantially impacts the apparent inductive bias of LMs.
We track the developmental trajectory of attention-head circuit formation across three 1B-class language models spanning two architecture families (dense transformer, mixture-of-experts) and two pretraining corpora (The Pile, DCLM): Pythia 1B, OLMo 1B-0724-hf, and OLMoE 1B-7B-0924. At each of 10 log-spaced revisions per model -- 30 mechanistic-interpretability runs in total -- we apply a participation-ratio (PR) spectral signal and an all-head capability-specific selectivity screen to track induction, previous-token, and BOS-attractor heads as they emerge. Five findings. (F1) Layers 0 and 1 produce zero BOS-classified heads at every revision in every model: the L0/L1 zero-BOS floor is an architectural property, not a learned outcome. (F2) The whole-model BOS-attractor fraction follows three distinct emergence shapes -- a gradual ramp in Pythia 1B, a sharp phase transition in OLMo 1B (7% to 70% between adjacent checkpoints), and a gradual ramp in OLMoE 1B-7B. (F3) In DCLM models, induction-circuit formation precedes BOS-attractor formation by 10-20x in tokens; capability-circuit formation and attention-sink formation are two transitions, not one. (F4) The capability-specific screen converges to the final induction circuit within 0.3-2% of total training tokens -- circuit identification does not require the final model. (F5) For every final-checkpoint induction head sampled across all three models, per-head PR is elevated at or before the first revision at which that head crosses its capability-selectivity threshold. The results refine the induction-phase-transition framing: in 1B-class models trained on DCLM, the induction transition and the attention-sink transition are separated by an order of magnitude in tokens and have qualitatively different shapes.