Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper identifies and analyzes transformer attention heads that function as membership testers, determining if a token has appeared previously in the context. It demonstrates that some heads operate as high-precision membership filters, exceeding the capacity of classical Bloom filters, while others exhibit behavior consistent with standard Bloom filters. Through confound controls, the authors refine their analysis, reclassifying one initially identified Bloom filter and strengthening the evidence for the remaining membership-testing heads, which are shown to contribute to both repeated and novel token processing.
Certain transformer attention heads act like surprisingly robust Bloom filters, remembering which tokens appeared earlier in the context with impressive accuracy and generalizing beyond just repeated names.
Some transformer attention heads appear to function as membership testers, dedicating themselves to answering the question "has this token appeared before in the context?" We identify these heads across four language models (GPT-2 small, medium, and large; Pythia-160M) and show that they form a spectrum of membership-testing strategies. Two heads (L0H1 and L0H5 in GPT-2 small) function as high-precision membership filters with false positive rates of 0-4\% even at 180 unique context tokens -- well above the $d_\text{head} = 64$ bit capacity of a classical Bloom filter. A third head (L1H11) shows the classic Bloom filter capacity curve: its false positive rate follows the theoretical formula $p \approx (1 - e^{-kn/m})^k$ with $R^2 = 1.0$ and fitted capacity $m \approx 5$ bits, saturating by $n \approx 20$ unique tokens. A fourth head initially identified as a Bloom filter (L3H0) was reclassified as a general prefix-attention head after confound controls revealed its apparent capacity curve was a sequence-length artifact. Together, the three genuine membership-testing heads form a multi-resolution system concentrated in early layers (0-1), taxonomically distinct from induction and previous-token heads, with false positive rates that decay monotonically with embedding distance -- consistent with distance-sensitive Bloom filters. These heads generalize broadly: they respond to any repeated token type, not just repeated names, with 43\% higher generalization than duplicate-token-only heads. Ablation reveals these heads contribute to both repeated and novel token processing, indicating that membership testing coexists with broader computational roles. The reclassification of L3H0 through confound controls strengthens rather than weakens the case: the surviving heads withstand the scrutiny that eliminated a false positive in our own analysis.
