Abstract
A transformer can make an attribute linearly decodable in its residual stream at a depth where that attribute does not yet influence the output. This gap between where information is readable and where it is used has been shown for attributes stated directly in the input. We ask whether it also holds for an attribute the model must infer gradually over a conversation, namely how expert its dialogue partner is. Using ExpertCollab, a corpus of multi-turn research-planning dialogues between model-played personas at four expertise levels, we find that partner expertise is most decodable in the early layers and falls to near chance before the midpoint of the network. Counterfactual patching shows that injecting the expertise difference at the layer of peak decodability barely changes a fixed late-layer readout, whereas the same difference injected past the midpoint propagates almost completely, a separation of more than an order of magnitude. A content-matched random control and a probe-free diagnostic place the transition at the same early layer, and a statically specified control attribute stays decodable throughout. An inferred relational attribute is therefore represented well before it becomes causally active, which bounds where any attempt to read out or steer partner-conditioned behavior must intervene. We use one model on a synthetic corpus as an initial demonstration.
Explore similar work
Jul 20, 2026cs.CL
Discourse relations provide document structure, critical to language understanding and enabling language model performance and ethicality. In this work, we investigate how instruction-tuned Transformer models (LLaMA and Mistral) encode discourse relations in English, with a particular focus on the contrasting relations of causation and antithesis. Framing the task as a next-token prediction task and applying a suite of interpretability techniques to test model internals, our findings show that certain early layers make predictive decisions at mid-sequence tokens, while some mid-level layers finalize their decisions closer to the last token. Most of the remaining layers primarily propagate earlier decisions rather than actively influencing them. Additionally, we observe that some layers exhibit a preference for one answer over alternatives, suggesting asymmetric representation of discourse-based reasoning.\footnote{Our code is available at https://github.com/abhidipbhattacharyya/causation_vs_antithesis}
Abhidip Bhattacharyya, Shira Wein
May 27, 2026cs.LG
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting substantially improves the sample efficiency of transformers, reducing the complexity of tasks like parity learning from exponential to polynomial in the input length. However, generating explicit reasoning steps at inference is computationally expensive. Implicit Chain-of-Thought (ICoT) has emerged as a promising empirical remedy that trains models to internalize intermediate steps within their hidden states, but its theoretical foundations remain poorly understood. We give the first theoretical analysis of ICoT, proving that an
L-layer transformer trained under our proposed Log-ICoT curriculum learns
k-parity with
poly(n) samples and
L=log2k training stages. This matches the sample efficiency of explicit CoT while eliminating its inference overhead, and extends prior one-layer parity guarantees to multi-layer architectures. Compared to standard ICoT, which removes thinking tokens one at a time, Log-ICoT removes them in geometric chunks, reducing the number of stages from linear in
k to logarithmic. Experiments on multi-layer transformers confirm the theory and visualize how reasoning is progressively absorbed into deeper layers.
Yixiao Huang, Hanlin Zhu, Zixuan Wang +4
Apr 16, 2026cs.LG
When do transformers commit to a decision, and what prevents them from correcting it? We introduce \textbf{prolepsis}: a transformer commits early, task-specific attention heads sustain the commitment, and no layer corrects it. Replicating \citeauthor{lindsey2025biology}'s (\citeyear{lindsey2025biology}) planning-site finding on open models (Gemma
2 2B, Llama3.2 1B), we ask five questions. (Q1)~Planning is invisible to six residual-stream methods; CLTs are necessary. (Q2)~The planning-site spike replicates with identical geometry. (Q3)~Specific attention heads route the decision to the output, filling a gap flagged as invisible to attribution graphs. (Q4)~Search requires
≤16 layers; commitment requires more. (Q5)~Factual recall shows the same motif at a different network depth, with zero overlap between recurring planning heads and the factual top-10. Prolepsis is architectural: the template is shared, the routing substrates differ. All experiments run on a single consumer GPU (16,GB VRAM).
Éric Jacopin