Deficient executive control in transformer attention

Deficient executive control in transformer attention

Abstract Although transformers in large language models (LLMs) effectively implement a self-attention mechanism that has revolutionized natural language processing, they lack an explicit architecture for the executive control of attention found in humans, which is essential for resolving conflicts and selecting relevant information in the presence of competing computations and is critical for adaptive behavior. To investigate the impact of this limitation in LLMs, we employed the classic color Stroop task, widely regarded as the gold standard, to test the executive control of attention in these models. Our results revealed a typical conflict effect of underperformance in terms of accuracy in the incongruent condition (e.g. naming the color of the word RED in blue) compared with the congruent condition (e.g. naming the color of the word RED in red), in short word lists, similar to human performance. However, as the length of the word lists increased, performance on the incongruent condition degraded toward near-total performance collapse, even as accuracy in the congruent condition remained excellent, and word reading (e.g. reading the word RED [in red] or RED [in blue], ignoring the color) was near-perfect. These findings demonstrate that transformer attention mechanisms are fundamentally limited in their capacity for conflict resolution across extended contexts, and a failure to up-regulate control adaptively under rising interference. We suggest that incorporating executive control mechanisms akin to those in biological attention is crucial for achieving artificial general intelligence.

The Illustrated Transformer

Discussions: Hacker News (65 points, 4 comments), Reddit r/MachineLearning (29 points, 3 comments) Translations: Arabic, Chinese (Simplified) 1, Chinese (Simplified) 2, French 1, French 2, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Persian, Russian, Spanish 1, Spanish 2, Vietnamese Watch: MIT’s Deep Learning State of the Art lecture referencing this post Featured in courses at Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, CMU and others Update: This post has now become a book! Check out LLM-book.com which contains (Chapter 3) an updated and expanded version of this post speaking about the latest Transformer models and how they've evolved in the seven years since the original Transformer (like Multi-Query Attention and RoPE Positional embeddings). In the previous post, we looked at Attention – a ubiquitous method in modern deep learning models. Attention is a concept that helped improve the performance of neural machine translation applications. In this post, we will look at The Transformer – a model that uses attention to boost the speed with which these models can be trained. The Transformer outperforms the Google Neural Machine Translation model in specific tasks. The biggest benefit, however, comes from how The Transformer lends itself to parallelization. It is in fact Google Cloud’s recommendation to use The Transformer as a reference model to use their Cloud TPU offering. So let’s try to break the model apart and look at how it functions. The Transformer was proposed in the paper Attention is All You Need. A TensorFlow implementation of it is available as a part of the Tensor2Tensor package. Harvard’s NLP group created a guide annotating the paper with PyTorch implementation. In this post, we will attempt to oversimplify things a bit and introduce the concepts one by one to hopefully make it easier to understand to people without in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. 2025 Update: We’ve built a free short course that brings the contents of this post up-to-date with animations: A High-Level Look Let’s begin by looking at the model as a single black box. In a machine translation application, it would take a sentence in one language, and output its translation in another.

Beyond Standard LLMs

Linear Attention Hybrids, Text Diffusion, Code World Models, and Small Recursive Transformers

Attention Is All You Need

"Attention Is All You Need" is a 2017 research paper in machine learning authored by eight scientists and engineers working at Google. The paper introduced a new deep learning architecture known as the transformer, based on the attention mechanism proposed in 2014 by Bahdanau et al. The transformer approach it describes has become the main architecture of a wide variety of artificial intelligence systems, including large language models. At the time, the focus of the research was on improving Seq2seq techniques for machine translation, but the authors go further in the paper, foreseeing the technique's potential for other tasks like question answering and what is now known as multimodal generative AI.

A Controlled Study of Attention-Only Transformers

Feed-forward networks hold two thirds of a transformer's non-embedding parameters, yet the architecture has not received a necessity test that controls parameters, compute, and depth at once. We pretrain attention-only decoder transformers (Simple Attention Networks, SANs) against standard transformers matched separately for parameter count, training FLOPs, and depth (2 to 48 layers), for up to 105B tokens at 6M to 87M parameters. Deleting feed-forward layers in place is costly: the standard transformer leads by 0.47 nats at matched depth and 0.26 nats at matched FLOPs. Reallocating the freed budget into attention depth closes the gap: at matched parameters the difference is 0.006 nats (0.27 percent of loss), reproducible to one part in ten thousand across seed pairs, shrinking across 5B, 30B, and 105B budgets, and holding near 0.02 nats across a 29x size range. Three measurements localize the remaining gap to parametric recall: attention-only models are better on context-grounded answers and worse where knowledge must come from weights. Weight spectra show why: routing matrices (Q/K) crystallize early, content matrices accumulate rank slowly, and removing feed-forward layers relocates this accumulation to the attention output projection. QK-normalization, not feed-forward layers or residual gating, keeps 48-layer attention-only stacks trainable. The deficit concentrates on low-context query prediction and localizes there entirely by the largest budget. A pre-registered test confirms the account: it predicts a 0.02 to 0.05 nat gap on knowledge-dense web text; a matched pair trained on fineweb-edu measures 0.040. Within the tested regime, attention does the rest.

Transformer (deep learning)

In deep learning, the transformer is a family of artificial neural network architectures based on the multi-head attention mechanism, in which text is converted to numerical representations called tokens, and each token is converted into a vector via lookup from a word embedding table. At each layer, each token is then contextualized within the scope of the context window with other (unmasked) tokens via a parallel multi-head attention mechanism, allowing the signal for key tokens to be amplified and less important tokens to be diminished. Because self-attention alone is permutation-invariant, transformers inject positional information, typically through positional encodings or learned positional embeddings, so token order can affect the output.

Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance on many complex tasks, being able, for example, to answer questions on almost any topic. However, they struggle with other simple tasks, such as counting the occurrences of letters in a word, as illustrated by the inability of many LLMs to count the number of "r" letters in "strawberry". Several works have studied this problem and linked it to the tokenization used by LLMs, to the intrinsic limitations of the attention mechanism, or to the lack of character-level training data. In this paper, we conduct an experimental study to evaluate the relations between the LLM errors when counting letters with 1) the frequency of the word and its components in the training dataset and 2) the complexity of the counting operation. We present a comprehensive analysis of the errors of LLMs when counting letter occurrences by evaluating a representative group of models over a large number of words. The results show a number of consistent trends in the models evaluated: 1) models are capable of recognizing the letters but not counting them; 2) the frequency of the word and tokens in the word does not have a significant impact on the LLM errors; 3) there is a positive correlation of letter frequency with errors, more frequent letters tend to have more counting errors, 4) the errors show a strong correlation with the number of letters or tokens in a word and 5) the strongest correlation occurs with the number of letters with counts larger than one, with most models being unable to correctly count words in which letters appear more than twice.

Why Do Large Language Models (LLMs) Struggle to Count Letters?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved unprecedented performance on many complex tasks, being able, for example, to answer questions on almost any topic. However, they struggle with other simple tasks, such as counting the occurrences of letters in a word, as illustrated by the inability of many LLMs to count the number of "r" letters in "strawberry". Several works have studied this problem and linked it to the tokenization used by LLMs, to the intrinsic limitations of the attention mechanism, or to the lack of character-level training data. In this paper, we conduct an experimental study to evaluate the relations between the LLM errors when counting letters with 1) the frequency of the word and its components in the training dataset and 2) the complexity of the counting operation. We present a comprehensive analysis of the errors of LLMs when counting letter occurrences by evaluating a representative group of models over a large number of words. The results show a number of consistent trends in the models evaluated: 1) models are capable of recognizing the letters but not counting them; 2) the frequency of the word and tokens in the word does not have a significant impact on the LLM errors; 3) there is a positive correlation of letter frequency with errors, more frequent letters tend to have more counting errors, 4) the errors show a strong correlation with the number of letters or tokens in a word and 5) the strongest correlation occurs with the number of letters with counts larger than one, with most models being unable to correctly count words in which letters appear more than twice.

Sycophancy Claims about Language Models: The Missing Human-in-the-Loop

Sycophantic response patterns in Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly claimed in the literature. We review methodological challenges in measuring LLM sycophancy and identify five core operationalizations. Despite sycophancy being inherently human-centric, current research does not evaluate human perception. Our analysis highlights the difficulties in distinguishing sycophantic responses from related concepts in AI alignment and offers actionable recommendations for future research.

Sycophancy Claims about Language Models: The Missing Human-in-the-Loop

Sycophantic response patterns in Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly claimed in the literature. We review methodological challenges in measuring LLM sycophancy and identify five core operationalizations. Despite sycophancy being inherently human-centric, current research does not evaluate human perception. Our analysis highlights the difficulties in distinguishing sycophantic responses from related concepts in AI alignment and offers actionable recommendations for future research.

Do LLMs write like humans? Variation in grammatical and rhetorical styles

As large language models (LLMs) have grown in power and become more widely available, research has focused on their ability to complete various tasks and the biases they exhibit when doing so. In this study, we instead examine their writing style in detail. We show that instruction-tuned models, which are trained to answer questions and solve problems, have a distinct noun-heavy, informationally dense writing style, even when prompted to match the style of informal speech and writing. These findings suggest that instruction-tuned models generate text that does not align with genre conventions familiar to human audiences, and demonstrate the value of linguistic variables in evaluating the output of LLMs., Large language models (LLMs) are capable of writing grammatical text that follows instructions, answers questions, and solves problems. As they have advanced, it has become difficult to distinguish their output from human-written text. While past research has found some differences in features such as word choice and punctuation and developed classifiers to detect LLM output, none has studied the rhetorical styles of LLMs. Using several variants of Llama 3 and GPT-4o, we construct two parallel corpora of human- and LLM-written texts from common prompts. Using Douglas Biber’s set of lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical features, we identify systematic differences between LLMs and humans and between different LLMs. These differences persist when moving from smaller models to larger ones and are larger for instruction-tuned models than base models. This observation of differences demonstrates that despite their advanced abilities, LLMs struggle to match human stylistic variation. Attention to more advanced linguistic features can hence detect patterns in their behavior not previously recognized.

Reality Monitoring in Large Language Models: Self-Knowledge That Transforms with Conversation Memory

A conversational AI that cannot tell its own output from what a user said will treat its own mistakes as user-provided facts. In humans, this capacity is called reality monitoring, and its failures are linked to hallucinations, delusions, and confabulation, yet whether LLMs possess it remains untested. Here we show, across two experiments and six LLMs, that source attribution depends on how conversational memory is structured: ceiling accuracy for self-generated content under minimal memory demands reverses to a fragile external-item advantage once episodic delay removes that shortcut. Feedback exposes two failures: in some models, internal and external judgments swap; in others, accuracy improves while confidence decouples from correctness, dissociations invisible to existing benchmarks. Across models, this pattern implicates active, not aggregate, parameter count. This suggests that as AI systems take on autonomous, multi-turn roles, evaluating what they know is not enough: tracking where that knowledge came from may matter equally.

Understanding Understanding: A Pragmatic Framework Motivated by...

Motivated by the rapid ascent of Large Language Models (LLMs) and debates about the extent to which they possess human-level qualities, we propose a framework for testing whether any agent (be it...

Language Models Need Sleep

View recent discussion. Abstract: Transformer-based large language models are increasingly used for long-horizon tasks; however, their attention mechanism scales poorly with context length. To handle this, we study a sleep-like consolidation mechanism in which a model periodically converts recent context into persistent fast weights before clearing its key-value cache. During sleep, the model performs $N$ offline recurrent passes over the accumulated context and updates the fast weights in its state-space model (SSM) blocks through a learned local rule. During inference, this shifts extra computation to sleep while preserving the latency of wake-time prediction. We test our method on controlled synthetic tasks, including cellular automata and multi-hop graph retrieval, as well as a realistic math reasoning task, on which a regular transformer as well as SSM-attention hybrid models fail. We then show that increasing sleep duration $N$ for our models improves performance, with the largest gains on examples that require deeper reasoning.

Attention (machine learning)

In machine learning, attention is a method that determines the importance of each component in a sequence relative to the other components in that sequence. In natural language processing, importance is represented by "soft" weights assigned to each word in a sentence. More generally, attention encodes vectors called token embeddings across a fixed-width sequence that can range from tens to millions of tokens in size.