When Do Attention Circuits Form? Developmental Trajectories of Capability and Attention-Sink Emergence Across Three 1B-ClassArchitectures

We test whether a single screen-and-ablate recipe -- identify attention-head circuits by task-pattern selectivity, then verify by causal ablation against a matched-random null -- produces consistent mechanistic claims across model families. The recipe ports across pipelines; the specific circuit it identifies does not. Across four composed tasks (indirect-object identification, greater-than, successor sequences, variable binding) and three 1B-class language models from distinct training pipelines (Pythia 1B / Pile / dense; OLMo 1B / DCLM / dense; OLMoE 1B-7B / DCLM / mixture-of-experts), we run a unified protocol with the matched-random null sampled across ten seeds per cell. The resulting 12 (task, model) cells contain no two that share the same primary causal screen at comparable effect size: the same task, with the same behavioral capability, is implemented through different attention-pattern types across models. We introduce a five-category screen-outcome taxonomy -- primary cause, secondary cause, correlate, interferer, null -- with quantitative thresholds, and show that all five outcomes appear in the panel. We propose a falsifiable hypothesis: the MoE model in our panel builds composed-task circuits on top of a foundational previous-token positional substrate (the prev-token-circuit ablation is the strongest causal screen on 3 of 4 tasks for OLMoE 1B-7B), with the IOI exception consistent with IOI being a final-position name-copying task whose structure directly probes a different pattern. The hypothesis comes with explicit predictions for other MoE language models. We frame the methodology honestly: the spectral participation-ratio signal from the companion methodology paper is a general indicator of specialized computation; what makes a finding task-specific is the task-pattern screen plus a per-model causal verification.

Attention is the key mechanism underlying in-context learning in transformers, and attention patterns have been observed empirically to emerge abruptly during training. We present a Bayesian theory of feature learning in attention; we then focus on how the copy subcircuit in the first layer of an induction head is learned by analyzing a single-layer softmax attention network trained on a copy task. We derive a closed-form posterior over the attention matrix and reduce it to a low-dimensional order parameter space. This reduction reveals a phase transition in the amount of training data, which we verify using both Bayesian sampling and standard training with Adam. We contrast our results with linear attention and find that softmax attention exhibits a \emph{first-order phase transition} while in linear attention an initial \emph{second-order phase transition} is followed by a smooth, continuous evolution toward the structured attention pattern (\emph{crossover}). Our work provides a first-principles theoretical account of the abrupt emergence of the copy subcircuit, reminiscent of the one observed in training large language models.

We present a three-step recipe for identifying attention-head circuits in pretrained transformers. A per-head spectral signal -- the time-integrated participation ratio of each head's attention output -- ranks heads doing sustained content-dependent computation without labels or attribution gradients. A task-pattern screen filters this general indicator into a task-specific candidate circuit, and group ablation against a matched-random control completes the causal claim. We validate across an 8x parameter range (51M to 1B-active / 7B-total), two architecture families (dense, mixture-of-experts), and four pretraining pipelines. The recipe ports: a 2-6 head induction circuit is causally necessary in every model tested, with a 94-100% drop in synthetic-induction top-1 after ablation. The spectral signal is predictive without supervision: on six independent seeds of a 51M-parameter probe model, the same computation identifies the seed-specific circuit on each seed. The fraction of heads doing identifiable specialized computation is conserved at 17-19% across the Pythia family (124M to 410M), while specific induction circuits stay 3-11 heads -- sublinear in total head count. This paper is the methodology anchor of a three-paper program; companion papers extend the recipe to developmental trajectories during pretraining and to composed-task circuits where pattern selectivity decouples from task-causal structure.