From the Transformer to a Formal Semantics of Coordinated Transformations

Mechanistic interpretability has identified transformer circuits, but lacks a shared vocabulary for describing how their functions compose across tasks and architectures. We introduce Coherentist Probabilistic Compositionalism (CPC), an interpretive framework that grounds transformer computation in coherentist theories of interpretation and describes it through four operator roles. Alignment identifies candidate relations, unification integrates supporting information, suppression reduces incompatible alternatives, and routing carries selected information to the output. Across 15 models from five architecture families, the suppression, unification, and routing weight-space signatures correlate with held-out activation-level role measures above random baselines. Suppression is more stable across tasks than unification. Ablating alignment heads reduces downstream suppressive activity beyond a random-head control in 10 models, but similar effects on no-conflict prompts indicate a general upstream dependency, not contradiction-specific coupling. Explicit contradictions significantly shift a layerwise coherence proxy in 14 models; after removing shared residual covariance, the gap has the predicted direction in every model. Base and instruction-tuned variants preserve induction-head score structure ($r{\geq}0.98$) without a consistent shift of operator signatures towards later layers. These results support CPC as a shared vocabulary for comparing transformer mechanisms while showing that their depth and geometric expression remain architecture-specific.

An operation's input-output function does not, by itself, determine its computational role within a represented process. That role also depends on the processes producing its inputs and receiving its outputs, a philosophical stance termed deep learning externalism (DLE). We develop a mathematical account of represented computation that distinguishes functional equivalence, retained predecessor distinctions, restricted receiver capability, and context-dependent effective architectures. The resulting equivalences depend on which computational relations a scientific description must preserve. We prove that two injective producer contexts can preserve every predecessor distinction while changing whether fixed local and attention receiver families are equivalent. We investigate these relations in a dimension-labelled PreNorm Transformer and their evolution under training. Residual bypasses restrict complete-state information identifications to two merges per block, while finer branches can change receiver accessibility. Exact gradient-descent models yield covariance-dependent geometric attenuation under learned producer routing and algebraic $(t^{-1/2})$ attenuation under Q/K-softmax training, with optimal bounded-receiver recovery errors derived in both cases. Coupled producer-attention dynamics establish how learning jointly reorganizes the presented features and receiver allocation. Finally, present functional or receiver-profile equivalence need not determine future behavior under an optimizer. In an input-conditioned attention model, two accessibility measurements form an exact reduced predictive state, whereas one alone does not.

Transformer has significantly propelled the development of artificial intelligence, and certainly the development of agents as well. We categorize attention structures of Transformer into two types based on the source of the input information: homogenous and heterogenous attention structures. Heterogenous attention structures, with co-attention as a typical example, process information from different sources. Heterogenous attention structure is the foundation for Transformer models to achieve more complex functions and integrate more modal information. Whether for research purposes or policy requirements, the interpretation of Transformer models with heterogenous attention structures is an important task. The fusion of information from different sources brings new challenges. Our work mainly includes two parts: method and experimentation. In terms of method, we propose an interpretation method for Transformer models with heterogenous attention structures. In terms of experimentation, based on our experimental analysis paradigm, we interpret the operating mechanisms of representative models, conduct semantic interpretation and logical interpretation.