Skip to content
Preprint

Shortcut Before Circuit: Document Statistics Time In-Context Conflict Resolution

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 37 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The authors train 26M-parameter transformers on a synthetic language where recency and rarity are exactly coextensive, and separate them with a minimal causal edit that inverts one cue while holding the truth, token count and answer position fixed.

Abstract

When a context asserts two values for one fact, a model commits to a cue -- recency, repetition, position -- but natural data rarely makes these disagree, so behavior cannot reveal which. We train 26M-parameter transformers on a synthetic language where recency and rarity are exactly coextensive, and separate them with a minimal causal edit that inverts one cue while holding the truth, token count and answer position fixed. All 75 runs reach accuracy>= 0.999, including where the trivial heuristic fails, so no held-in evaluation distinguishes them. Under intervention the per-cell readout does not replicate: 13 of 25 cells differ by more than 0.3 in sign fraction across three seeds, the largest by 0.879 against a standard error of 0.025. The construction predicts this -- coextensive rules leave the objective indifferent between them -- and the variance is ordered by how much of the optimization each comparison releases. What replicates is timing: escape from a positional shortcut with a closed-form ceiling, monotone in redundancy. Probed before that escape, attribution reverses sign in 32 of 75 runs at unchanged accuracy, and gating on circuit formation is necessary but not sufficient. The corpus fixes when a mechanism appears, not which one -- a criterion for when mechanistic attribution to data is available at all, and our construction makes the unavailable case exact.

View source

Similar papers

#machine learning Preprint Sep 2026

Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models

When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the guessing. Two model...

Arman Nik Khah · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Explicit, Not Longer: What Makes Epistemic Stance Survive Memory Compression

Agent memory systems compress what they store, and compression is built to drop qualifiers, so a claim's epistemic standing tends not to survive being written to memory. We ask what governs whether it does. Matched notes carry the identical claim and identical stance and differ only in where that stance sits; one model...

Alex Kwon · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Answer First, Reason Later: When Commitment Order Costs Accuracy in Diffusion Language Models

Masked diffusion language models revise many masked output positions in parallel. We call a token committed once it becomes visible and is never masked again, and call a response answer-first when the final answer commits before the reasoning printed ahead of it. On 1,069 GSM8K test questions, an explicit step-by-step...

J. Yeom, Jaewon Sok, Seonghyeon Park et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Attention-Path Fragility as an Uncertainty Signal in Large Language Models

It is proposed that a model's uncertainty about a token is reflected not only in the breadth of its output distribution but also in whether a confident prediction is \emph{fragile} under perturbation of its attention pathways, a training-free estimator that masks attention heads and measures the BALD mutual information...

Minsoo Kim, Sungyoung Ji, Kisung Moon et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.