How Do Transformers Learn Variable Binding in Symbolic Programs?
Yiwei Wu, Atticus Geiger, Raphaël Millière
Abstract
Variable binding—the ability to associate variables with values—is fundamental to symbolic computation and cognition. Although classical architectures typically implement variable binding via addressable memory, it is not well understood how modern neural networks lacking built-in binding operations may acquire this capacity. We investigate this by training a Transformer to dereference queried variables in symbolic programs where variables are assigned either numerical constants or other variables. Each program requires following chains of variable assignments up to four steps deep to find the queried value, and also contains irrelevant chains of assignments acting as distractors. Our analysis reveals a developmental trajectory with three distinct phases during training: (1) random prediction of numerical constants, (2) a shallow heuristic prioritizing early variable assignments, and (3) the emergence of a systematic mechanism for dereferencing assignment chains. Using causal interventions, we find that the model learns to exploit the residual stream as an addressable memory space, with specialized attention heads routing information across token positions. This mechanism allows the model to dynamically track variable bindings across layers, resulting in accurate dereferencing. Our results show how Transformer models can learn to implement systematic variable binding without explicit architectural support, bridging connectionist and symbolic approaches.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers8
- Language Models Use Lookbacks to Track BeliefsNikhil Prakash, Natalie Shapira, Arnab Sen Sharma, Christoph Riedl et al.ICLR 2026 · 42 citations
- Mixing Mechanisms: How Language Models Retrieve Bound Entities In-ContextYoav Gur-Arieh, Mor Geva, Atticus GeigerICLR 2026 · 26 citations
- In-Context AlgebraEric Todd, Jannik Brinkmann, Rohit Gandikota, David BauICLR 2026 · 3 citations
- Seeing to Generalize: How Visual Data Corrects Binding ShortcutsNicolas Buzeta, Felipe del Rio, Cristian Hinostroza, Denis Parra et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- ConvexBench: Can LLMs Recognize Convex Functions?Yepeng Liu, Yu Huang, Yu-Xiang Wang, Yingbin LIANG et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on12
- Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTKevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan BelinkovNeurIPS 2022 · 3,415 citations
- Investigating Gender Bias in Language Models Using Causal Mediation AnalysisJesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 851 citations
- Causal Abstractions of Neural NetworksAtticus Geiger, Hanson Lu, Thomas Icard, Christopher PottsNeurIPS 2021 · 516 citations
- Towards Understanding Grokking: An Effective Theory of Representation LearningZiming Liu, Ouail Kitouni, Niklas Nolte, Eric J. Michaud et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 299 citations
- Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity TrackingNikhil Prakash, Tamar Rott Shaham, Tal Haklay, Yonatan Belinkov et al.ICLR 2024 · 113 citations
Related papers
- The Unstoppable Rise of Computational Linguistics in Deep LearningJames HendersonACL 2020 · 4 citations
- Multi-head Transformers Provably Learn Symbolic Multi-step Reasoning via Gradient DescentTong Yang, Yu Huang, Yingbin Liang, Yuejie ChiNeurIPS 2025 · 8 citations
- Emergent Symbols through Binding in External MemoryTaylor Whittington Webb, Ishan Sinha, Jonathan D. CohenICLR 2021 · 68 citations
- Emergent Symbolic Mechanisms Support Abstract Reasoning in Large Language ModelsYukang Yang, Declan Campbell, Kaixuan Huang, Mengdi Wang et al.ICML 2025
- Mastering Symbolic Operations: Augmenting Language Models with Compiled Neural NetworksYixuan Weng, Minjun Zhu, Fei Xia, Bin Li et al.ICLR 2024 · 14 citations
