How Language Models Differ in Redistributing Attention-Head Activity Under Serial Demand

Large language models reuse the same attention heads across tasks, but identifying these shared heads does not explain what they do differently in each task. A natural source of inspiration is task-dependent interactions among shared brain regions, which motivate a network view of language-model computation. Here, we compare fixed model components across tasks using identical graph facts, statements specifying which directed connections are present. We measure how interventions affect attention heads and the activation state in later layers (influence), as well as the answer (importance). Task changes redistribute the influence in five open-weight models spanning four families and 1.5-14 billion parameters. In Gemma-2-9B and Qwen3-14B, an activation edit changes an early internal activation vector and switches which fact the model reads while the written instruction stays fixed. The same heads then respond to different graph facts and influence later components differently. For each prompt, we construct two linear response maps, one before the edit and one after it. Each map predicts a later head's response from a measured change in an earlier head. For a separate factual intervention, the map for the corresponding condition reduces mean squared prediction error by 53.6% in Gemma and 5.0% in Qwen compared with the average of the two maps. These findings show that task context changes both which graph facts the shared components respond to and how their outputs affect later computation. A network account may help explain how models use shared parameters to perform different computations. Measurements of task-dependent influence could also guide interventions intended to alter one behavior while preserving others.

Modern language models, including transformer, recurrent, and memory-based variants, share a common chassis: a stack of identical layers in which parameters are allocated uniformly across depth. This is a default inherited from the original transformer and largely unchanged since, yet a growing body of evidence suggests that layers contribute non-uniformly to the final output, with later layers refining the residual stream rather than transforming it. We ask whether parameter capacity should reflect this asymmetry. Our controlled experiment shows that, under a fixed budget, allocating more capacity to earlier layers and less to later layers improves perplexity over a uniform-width baseline, while the reverse allocation hurts. Building on this result, we introduce Tapered Language Models (TLMs), an architectural principle in which a parameter-bearing component is monotonically tapered across depth under a fixed total budget. MLPs are the natural site for this instantiation: they dominate parameter count across all modern LM families and expose width as a single, clean axis of variation. Across three model scales and four architectures (Transformer, Gated Attention, Hope-attention, and Titans), tapering MLP width via a smooth cosine schedule consistently improves perplexity and downstream benchmark performance over uniform baselines, at no additional parameter or compute cost. These findings establish depth-aware capacity allocation as a simple, architecture-agnostic axis of language model design, a free lever hidden in plain sight.

Activation steering edits the behaviour of a frozen language model by adding a learned vector to its residual stream, and current practice fixes the injection layers globally per task. We argue that the best layers are an instance-level decision, and we make per-instance, multi-layer selection both well understood and deployable. On two open-weight 8B models and six binary persona traits, a per-instance oracle over layer subsets shows that the best layers vary from one input to the next: on most trait-model pairs, no fixed global layer set recovers the per-instance benefit. A greedy rule that ranks layers by single-layer marginal effect recovers nearly all of the oracle's benefit, but both must score candidate layers against the gold answer, so neither can run at deployment; the rule instead becomes the target a prompt-only predictor is trained to reproduce. Our deployable recipe needs no label at inference: a per-instance layer ranker read off the prompt embedding, a classifier that infers the steering direction, and an adaptive gate that scores short steered passes against that inferred direction and steers no more layers than necessary. The recipe recovers most of the oracle's lift (the bulk on the stronger model, a clear majority on the harder one), never drives any trait-model pair below its unsteered alignment baseline on average, and largely avoids the fluency collapse that strong global selection incurs at higher layer counts. A mechanistic account, "direction over magnitude", explains the behavioural flip under a mis-directed global set, the output collapse from steering too many layers, and the ceiling of unsteerable inputs.