Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how attention mechanisms in language models facilitate the transformation of latent variables into verbalizable forms, revealing that demand influences the visibility of these representations. By employing Jacobian lenses on open-weight models across a benchmark with shared contexts, the authors find that attention-mediated gathering significantly enhances the representation of concepts, achieving a notable increase in percentile rank. The findings highlight that the demand for a variable determines its concentration and visibility, with specific attention windows showing a 17x increase in transport efficiency compared to shallower layers.
Attention mechanisms can amplify the visibility of latent variables by up to 17x, depending on task demand, challenging our understanding of how language models manage internal representations.
Language models hold latent quantities in a form they can report on, and more of a quantity is present in that form when the task requires reusing it flexibly. What causes a representation to enter that form is open, and the word workspace invites an admission story: a gate that decides what gets in. Testing it on open-weight models with Jacobian lenses, over a benchmark whose five arms share an identical context, we find no gate where it predicts one. Demand raises a concept's lens visibility beyond what applying an operator to a supplied value produces: +0.050 [+0.045, +0.057] in percentile rank on our primary checkpoint, positive on all four we measure, though that arm answers at ceiling and the accuracymatched contrast is stronger under that readout. At the same time one shared linear map decodes the variable from every arm, the control included, at 6.4-9.0x its selection-corrected floor. What produces the later readable form at the queried position is attention-mediated gathering inside a mid-depth window: separating patch depth from readout depth puts transport there at least 17x above anywhere shallower under non-saturating readouts, with no tested MLP output contributing positively inside it. Under the saturating percentile rank the same grid does not localise the window, which is a fact about that measure. An arm that needs the variable for nothing concentrates sevenfold less, so the window is demand-specific. That window has two measured edges, a survival failure below and destruction above, and it falls at the same fractional depth in a 64-layer hybrid and a 62-layer dense model from another family. We localise where the variable is installed and read, not the route from the passage, which transports nothing. But the readout is not a calibrated measure of use: three components move it to within 12% of one another and differ 7.4x in what they do to the answer.
