claim
active
claim:looped-transformers-trained-from-scratch-without-feedforward-biasing-training-procedures-still-self-organize-into-multiple-distinct-mixing-stages-resembling-feedforward-stages-of-inferenceLooped transformers trained from scratch without feedforward-biasing training procedures still self-organize into multiple distinct mixing stages resembling feedforward stages of inference
Establishes that stages of inference are beneficial even when repeatedly applied in recurrent depth
Source paper
extracted_from(2026) · Hugh Blayney · Álvaro Arroyo · Johan Obando-Ceron · Pablo Samuel Castro +3
Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count
Papers (1)
paper
Related by similarity (8)
cosine ≥ 0.65 · no typed edgeEntities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.
- Evidence that stages of inference emerge without training biases from retrofitting, recurrence scheduling, or multi-recurrence losses
- Central empirical claim of the paper supported by ColSum concentration analysis across multiple architectures
- Transformers almost surely maintain input-injectivity throughout training, not just at initialisationhypothesis0.793Conjecture supported by Nikolaou et al. 2025 for last-token hidden states
- Antra's foundational claim about how introspection arises computationally rather than from memorised text.
- Evidence that in-context learning is not mere pattern matching but genuine optimization, relevant to applying the thesis to inference
- Strong claim that inference stage structure is architectural rather than learned
- why do stages of inference form in looped models if not merely to mitigate the harms of transformer depth?question0.766Open question raised by the finding that looped models develop the same stages while improving with greater recurrent depth
- Models trained directly with asynchronous updates would exhibit even greater robustness than synchronously trained modelshypothesis0.765Hypothesis that motivated the asynchronous robustness comparison experiment