Constrained Belief Updates Explain Geometric Structures in Transformer Representations
Mateusz Piotrowski, Paul M. Riechers, Daniel Filan, Adam S. Shai
Abstract
What computational structures emerge in transformers trained on next-token prediction? In this work, we provide evidence that transformers implement constrained Bayesian belief updating-a parallelized version of partial Bayesian inference shaped by architectural constraints. We integrate the model-agnostic theory of optimal prediction with mechanistic interpretability to analyze transformers trained on a tractable family of hidden Markov models that generate rich geometric patterns in neural activations. Our primary analysis focuses on single-layer transformers, revealing how the first attention layer implements these constrained updates, with extensions to multi-layer architectures demonstrating how subsequent layers refine these representations. We find that attention carries out an algorithm with a natural interpretation in the probability simplex, and create representations with distinctive geometric structure. We show how both the algorithmic behavior and the underlying geometry of these representations can be theoretically predicted in detail-including the attention pattern, OV-vectors, and embedding vectors-by modifying the equations for optimal future token predictions to account for the architectural constraints of attention. Our approach provides a principled lens on how architectural constraints shape the implementation of optimal prediction, revealing why transformers develop specific intermediate geometric structures.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext cdedfd75-22cb-407e-8b11-0a5bcae4433fCited by top-tier papers2
- Transformers learn factored representationsAdam Shai, Loren Amdahl-Culleton, Casper Christensen, Henry R Bigelow et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
- Gradient Smoothing: Coupling Layer-wise Updates for Improved OptimizationHaoming Meng, Anton Sugolov, Vardan PapyanICML 2026
Builds on6
- Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language ModelsRobert Huben, Hoagy Cunningham, Logan Riggs Smith, Aidan Ewart et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,072 citations
- Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic InterpretabilityArthur Conmy, Augustine N. Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 861 citations
- The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language ModelsKiho Park, Yo Joong Choe, Victor VeitchICML 2024 · 461 citations
- Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilityNeel Nanda, Lawrence Chan, Tom Lieberum, Jess Smith et al.ICLR 2023 · 54 citations
- Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 SmallKevin Ro Wang, Alexandre Variengien, Arthur Conmy, Buck Shlegeris et al.ICLR 2023 · 50 citations
Related papers
- Transformers Represent Belief State Geometry in their Residual StreamAdam S. Shai, Lucas Teixeira, Alexander Gietelink Oldenziel, Sarah Marzen et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 83 citations
- Attention as Implicit Structural InferenceRyan Singh, Christopher L. BuckleyNeurIPS 2023 · 12 citations
- How Transformers Learn Causal Structures In-Context: Explainable Mechanism Meets Theoretical GuaranteeJianzhe Wei, Siyu Chen, Jianliang He, Zhuoran YangICLR 2026
- Causal Interpretation of Self-Attention in Pre-Trained TransformersRaanan Y. Rohekar, Yaniv Gurwicz, Shami NisimovNeurIPS 2023 · 62 citations
- How Transformers Represent Hierarchies: A Local-to-Global MechanismZhiling Zhou, Tianhao Wang, Zhuoran YangICML 2026
