Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how transformer models resolve conflicts in context when presented with contradictory cues by training them on a synthetic language where recency and rarity are perfectly aligned. The researchers found that even with a minimal causal edit that inverts one cue, models achieved over 99.9% accuracy, revealing that traditional heuristics fail to distinguish between cues when the underlying objective is indifferent. Notably, the study highlights that while timing of cue resolution is consistent, the mechanisms of attribution can vary significantly across runs, suggesting a complex interplay between model behavior and data structure.
Models can achieve near-perfect accuracy in resolving conflicting cues, yet their internal mechanisms can differ dramatically, challenging our understanding of model interpretability.
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.
