Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 53 references

A Graph Signal Processing Perspective on Numerical Sequence Representations in LLM In-Context Learning

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read As context grows, LLM attention graphs and hidden-state signals sort numerical inputs by dynamical complexity, from constant and periodic to chaotic.

desk verdict A solid, clearly written empirical study of internal graph-spectral signatures in numerical ICL; the main missing control is a shuffled-token/null baseline, but the core descriptive finding holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03015 v1 pith:LSBWBSDP submitted 2026-08-04 cs.LG cs.AIeess.SP

Jiajun Bao , Zihao Qi , Toni J.B. Liu , Gurbir Arora , Raphaël Sarfati , Nicolas Boullé , Christopher J. Earls This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIeess.SP
keywords in-contextlearninggraphsignalprocessingLaplacianspectrumattentiongraphsdynamicalcomplexitylogisticmapLLMinterpretabilityspectralentropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that during numerical in-context learning (ICL), the internal organization of a large language model tracks the dynamical complexity of the input sequence, not just the output error. The authors treat attention weights as defining a weighted graph over tokens and hidden states as signals on that graph, then measure three spectral quantities: the normalized Fiedler value for global connectivity, the high-frequency energy ratio (HFER) for signal roughness, and the exponentiated spectral entropy for effective spectral support. They find that as context length increases, simpler inputs (constants and short-period sequences) produce more globally connected attention graphs and smoother, spectrally concentrated hidden states, while chaotic inputs produce more localized graphs with higher high-frequency energy and broader spectral support; periodic inputs fall in between, ordered by period length. The ordering holds across Llama 3.2 1B/3B/8B, Phi-4, and SmolLM3, so the authors conclude the signatures are conserved across model families and become sharper with context.

What carries the argument

The central construction is the layerwise token graph: at each transformer layer, each head's post-softmax attention matrix is symmetrized and averaged across heads to form a weighted, undirected adjacency matrix over token nodes, and the hidden states entering that layer form vector-valued signals on those nodes. The normalized graph Laplacian's eigenvectors provide a graph Fourier basis, and the signal's projection onto that basis yields the three diagnostics: the normalized Fiedler value (second-smallest normalized Laplacian eigenvalue) measures global connectivity, HFER measures the fraction of hidden-state energy in the upper half of graph frequencies, and exponentiated spectral entropy measures the effective number of equally weighted modes. Qualitative token-graph visualizations use a force-directed layout driven by attention weights, with node colors encoding the leading three SVD components of hidden states, so the same organization can be seen as clique-like subnetworks that appear only for chaotic inputs or for long-period inputs before enough context has resolved their recurrence.

What would settle it

A concrete check: recompute the three diagnostics per attention head and with a directed Laplacian rather than the symmetrized, head-averaged graph. If the chaotic-versus-periodic separation in the normalized Fiedler value, HFER, and spectral support disappears under either variant, the reported ordering is an artifact of the aggregation recipe rather than a property of the model. A second check is a permutation test that scrambles hidden states across nodes while keeping the attention graph fixed; if HFER differences persist after scrambling, the spectral support is not actually tied to the token graph.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM internal representations during numerical ICL exhibit systematic, context-dependent structure organized by input dynamical complexity. Concretely, at longer contexts the layer-averaged diagnostics separate chaotic logistic and Lorenz trajectories from constant and periodic trajectories: chaotic inputs have lower normalized Fiedler value (weaker global attention-graph connectivity), higher HFER (hidden-state energy shifted toward high graph frequencies), and larger effective spectral support (energy spread across more graph Fourier modes). Among periodic logistic inputs the separation is graded by period, and the turning points for periods 32 and 64 suggest the model needs progressively more context to recognize longer recurrences. The authors also report that graph-spectral diagnostics separate input families whose output-level extrapolation errors are tightly clustered, indicating the internal signatures are not simply a reflection of prediction error.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the symmetrized, head-averaged attention matrix faithfully represents the token graph, so the spectral diagnostics measure genuine internal organization rather than artifacts of averaging away directional and per-head attention structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Longer context makes LLM internal organization more clearly reflect input dynamical complexity, so representation-level measurements complement output-level prediction error as a way to study numerical ICL.
  • For periodic inputs, the graph-spectral diagnostics produce a period-ordered ladder, with higher-period sequences initially behaving like chaotic ones until enough context reveals the recurrence.
  • Because the trends persist across Llama 3.2, Llama 3.1, Phi-4, and SmolLM3, the organization appears to be a general feature of pretrained LLMs rather than a quirk of one architecture.
  • Instruction-tuned variants show weaker separation between high-period and chaotic inputs than base models, suggesting post-training can blur these internal dynamical-complexity signatures.
  • Attention-only and hidden-state-only controls reproduce broad trends but with less fine-grained separation, implying the joint graph-signal view carries information that neither signal alone provides.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the paper leaves open is causal testing: ablating or amplifying particular graph-frequency bands of hidden states could determine whether the smoother low-frequency signals for simple inputs are actually used for next-state prediction.
  • The preliminary natural-language and code results suggest numerical sequences occupy a distinct spectral region (more globally connected, lower HFER, narrower support); testing whether this separation tracks token-level predictability or training-data exposure would be a concrete follow-up.
  • The period-ordered turning points in the Fiedler value hint at an internal 'context needed to identify regime' metric, which could be used to predict when an LLM's extrapolation will become reliable before consulting outputs.
  • Per-head and directed attention analyses would show whether the aggregation step hides meaningful directional structure; if the signatures survive at the per-head level, they would be a stronger invariant of the model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a graph-signal-processing framework for analyzing LLM internal representations during numerical in-context learning (ICL). At each transformer layer, the symmetrized, head-averaged post-softmax attention matrix defines a weighted undirected graph over tokens, and the hidden states entering the layer define vector-valued signals on the graph nodes. The authors compute three layer-averaged diagnostics—normalized Fiedler value λ2, high-frequency energy ratio (HFER), and exponentiated spectral entropy exp(SE)—and pair them with Fruchterman–Reingold token-graph visualizations. Using a controlled suite of constant, periodic (logistic map, periods 2–64), and chaotic (logistic r = 3.9, 4.0; Lorenz) inputs serialized as comma-delimited three-digit tokens, they report that, as context length grows from 100 to 2000 tokens, chaotic inputs develop lower λ2, higher HFER, and broader exp(SE) than non-chaotic inputs, with periodic inputs ordered by period length. The trends are reproduced across Llama 3 (1B/3B/8B, base and instruct), Phi-4, and SmolLM3, and are robust to HFER cutoffs, layers, and layout choices. The paper concludes that internal representations are systematically, context-dependently organized by input dynamical complexity in a way that output-level extrapolation error alone does not reveal.

Significance. The manuscript is honest, careful, and unusually well controlled on the descriptive side. The code and data are publicly released; the two free parameters (HFER cutoff, display threshold) are robustness-tested (Appendices D.1 and E); the layer-averaged results are cross-checked against final-layer and per-layer analyses (Appendix D.2); and the cross-model conservation across Llama 3, Phi-4, and SmolLM3 is a genuine strength. The observation that representation-level diagnostics separate input families whose output-level errors remain tightly clustered (Fig. 5 versus Fig. 3) is a substantive, falsifiable claim, and the Limitations section appropriately disclaims causal mechanisms. However, the central interpretive step—attributing the ordering to input dynamical complexity—is currently vulnerable to a token-statistics confound, and the fine-grained ordering claims lack inferential statistics. Both are fixable within the manuscript's scope; if the requested null-model and per-head or directed-attention checks confirm the ordering, this would be a valuable contribution to the mechanistic-interpretability and time-series ICL literatures.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.1, Fig. 3] The fine-grained claims in Section 4.1 rest on visual inspection of curves with ±1 SD shading over 20 realizations per family, with no significance tests or effect sizes. Specifically, the 'ordered turning points' claim (periods 32 and 64 turn upward at N = 300 and N = 400) and the period-ordered HFER ladder are load-bearing for the paper's central claim that periodic inputs are ordered by period length, and multiple-comparison concerns arise across 10 families and 20 context lengths. I recommend permutation tests comparing chaotic versus non-chaotic groups at each N, a standardized effect-size measure (for example, Cohen's d or an AUC) for the λ2/HFER/exp(SE) separations, and a rank-correlation test between period length and diagnostic values at fixed N to substantiate the ladder.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 4] The period-64 narrative—a clique-like subnetwork concentrated in the first roughly 128 tokens that disappears once recurrence is revealed—is based on representative visualizations; quantifying this across the 20 realizations (for example, the local clustering coefficient or conductance of the detected cluster as a function of token position) would make the claim reproducible and would also justify the 'clique-like' terminology used for the chaotic inputs.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 2] Node colors are obtained by per-input min–max scaling of the leading three uncentered SVD coordinates (Appendix E), so colors are not comparable across panels; this caveat should appear in the main-text caption to avoid over-interpreting cross-input color differences.
  3. [§4.1, Fig. 3(a)] The claimed turning points for periods 32 and 64 should be marked on the figure or defined by an explicit criterion, since they are load-bearing for the interpretation that the model needs progressively more context to resolve longer-period dynamics and are currently identified by eye.
  4. [Appendices B, E, H] There are several spacing and subscripting artifacts in the displayed appendix equations (for example, 'rX k=1' in Appendix E and missing spacing around operators in Appendix B); a proofreading pass over the appendices would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Descriptive empirical graph-spectral analysis; diagnostics are computed from model internals with no fitted target, and self-citations are background only — no circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper is descriptive rather than derivational: its central claims are that layer-averaged graph-spectral diagnostics (normalized Fiedler value, HFER, and effective spectral support) order numerical input families by dynamical complexity and context length. These diagnostics are defined directly from attention matrices and hidden states via standard spectral graph theory equations in Section 3.2, and the input complexity ordering is defined independently from the logistic-map period parameter and verified by state-distribution entropy in Appendix B. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then used to predict a closely related quantity; the reported curves are direct measurements of model internals. The arbitrary choices, such as the HFER cutoff K = floor(N/2), the FR layout, and the edge-display threshold, are explicitly tested for robustness in Appendices D and E. The non-graph baselines in Appendix H (attention Gini, positional DCT HFER, and positional spectral entropy) show that the broad trends also appear without the graph construction, which weakens the concern that the graph aggregation recipe creates the ordering by construction. Self-citations, including Liu et al. (2024), Bao et al. (2026), and Sarfati et al. (2026), are used for background, serialization conventions, or motivation, and are not load-bearing for the main result. The diagnostics are adapted from Noël (2026), an external work, and are redefined explicitly in this paper. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The central claim is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction; any remaining concerns about confounds, such as token-statistics differences between chaotic and periodic inputs, are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. It relies on standard spectral graph theory, the operational definition of dynamical complexity, and the interpretive assumption that attention-derived token graphs and hidden-state signals form meaningful graph-signal pairs. The only manually chosen analysis parameters are the HFER cutoff and the visualization edge threshold, both tested for robustness.

free parameters (2)
  • HFER high-frequency cutoff fraction = 0.5 (K=floor(N/2))
    Defines what counts as high-frequency energy in hidden-state signals. Arbitrary but robustness checks in Appendix D.1 across 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 show the same qualitative trends.
  • Edge display threshold multiplier kappa = 2.5
    Used only for visual clarity when rendering token graphs, not for diagnostics. Appendix E shows robustness across kappa in {2,4,8}.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The symmetrized, head-averaged attention matrix defines a faithful undirected weighted token graph for spectral analysis.
    Central construction in Section 3.2. Directional attention and per-head differences are discarded, so spectra may reflect aggregation choices rather than a single computational process.
  • domain assumption Hidden states entering a layer form a graph signal whose spectral energy distribution reflects task-relevant organization.
    Section 3.2 pairs hidden-state matrix X^(l) with the attention-induced Laplacian L^(l), treating representation geometry as signal on the token graph.
  • domain assumption The period length and state-distribution entropy ordering is a valid operationalization of input dynamical complexity.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix B define complexity via logistic periods and Shannon entropy. This is a modeling choice, not a theorem, and the paper acknowledges it is operational.
  • standard math Standard spectral graph theory facts: Laplacian PSD, zero eigenvalue multiplicity equals components, Parseval identity, and Fiedler connectivity interpretation.
    Appendix C and Section 3.2 rely on these without proof. They are standard and correct.
  • domain assumption The full weighted attention graphs used in diagnostics are connected.
    Appendix C asserts connectedness. If some token had zero attention to all others, the Fiedler value interpretation would change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Graph Signal Processing Perspective on Numerical Sequence Representations in LLM In-Context Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSBWBSDP

@misc{pith2026260803015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Graph Signal Processing Perspective on Numerical Sequence Representations in LLM In-Context Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSBWBSDP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03015}
}
read the original abstract

Pretrained large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated in-context learning (ICL) capabilities for numerical inference over sequences serialized as text. Prior work has identified and characterized this form of numerical inference primarily through output-level evaluations such as prediction error. However, how numerical information is organized within LLM representations remains much less understood. To study this internal organization, we adopt a graph signal processing perspective in which attention induces a weighted graph over tokens, while token hidden states define signals on its nodes. Quantitative graph-spectral diagnostics and qualitative token-graph visualizations reveal that representations become more clearly differentiated by input dynamical complexity as context length increases. Simpler inputs produce attention-induced token graphs with stronger global connectivity and smoother, spectrally concentrated hidden-state signals, whereas more complex inputs produce more localized graphs and hidden-state signals with broader spectral support and greater high-frequency energy. Together, these findings point to systematic, context-dependent internal signatures associated with numerical ICL that are conserved across model families.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03015 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the graph signal processing framework for studying LLM internal representations during [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of attention-induced token graphs across context lengths. Rows show final-layer results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Layer-averaged graph-spectral diagnostics for the main numerical input families using Llama-3.2-3B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Final-layer attention-induced token graphs and trajectory mappings for Llama-3.2-3B at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Context-length scaling of next-state extrapola [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Empirical state-distribution entropy as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Low end of the normalized Laplacian spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Layer-averaged HFER cutoff sensitivity. The panels report [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Layer-specific graph-spectral diagnostics for the main numerical input families using Llama-3.2-3B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Last-layer attention matrices for Llama-3.2-3B across the main numerical input families at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Last-layer hidden-state projections for Llama-3.2-3B across the main numerical input families at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative hidden-state SVD-energy frac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of attention-based node positions for Llama-3.2-3B at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Threshold robustness of last-layer attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Layout-initialization robustness of last-layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Layerwise attention-induced token graphs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Layer-averaged graph-spectral diagnostics across base-model scales and instruction-tuned variants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Layer-averaged graph-spectral diagnostics for additional model families under the same experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of graph-spectral diagnostics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Last-layer attention-induced token graphs for additional structured numerical inputs with Llama-3.2-3B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Layer-averaged graph-spectral diagnostics for natural-language and code inputs using Llama-3.2-3B, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    NeurIPS , year=

    Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Time Series Forecasters , author=. NeurIPS , year=

    work page

  2. [2]

    COLM , year=

    From Words to Numbers: Your Large Language Model Is Secretly A Capable Regressor When Given In-Context Examples , author=. COLM , year=

    work page

  3. [3]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 , url=

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 , url=

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774

  4. [4]

    Aaron Grattafiori and Abhimanyu Dubey and Abhinav Jauhri and Abhinav Pandey and Abhishek Kadian and Ahmad Al-Dahle and Aiesha Letman and Akhil Mathur and Alan Schelten and Alex Vaughan and Amy Yang and Angela Fan and Anirudh Goyal and Anthony Hartshorn and Aobo Yang and Archi Mitra and Archie Sravankumar and Artem Korenev and Arthur Hinsvark and Arun Rao ...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08905 , year=

    Marah Abdin and Jyoti Aneja and Harkirat Behl and S. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08905 , year=. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.08905 , url=

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.08905

  6. [6]

    ICLR , year=

    Zero-shot forecasting of chaotic systems , author=. ICLR , year=

    work page

  7. [7]

    Zhang and Xiaoming Shi and Pin-Yu Chen and Yuxuan Liang and Yuan-Fang Li and Shirui Pan and Qingsong Wen , booktitle=

    Ming Jin and Shiyu Wang and Lintao Ma and Zhixuan Chu and James Y. Zhang and Xiaoming Shi and Pin-Yu Chen and Yuxuan Liang and Yuan-Fang Li and Shirui Pan and Qingsong Wen , booktitle=. Time-. 2024 , url=

    2024

  8. [8]

    2025 , url=

    Elie Bakouch and Loubna Ben Allal and Anton Lozhkov and Nouamane Tazi and Lewis Tunstall and Carlos Miguel Pati. 2025 , url=

    work page 2025

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2607.02770 , url=

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02770 , year=. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2607.02770 , url=

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    and Schult, Daniel A

    Hagberg, Aric A. and Schult, Daniel A. and Swart, Pieter J. , booktitle=. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using. 2008 , doi=

    2008

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02315 , year=

    The Shape of Beliefs: Geometry, Dynamics, and Interventions along Representation Manifolds of Language Models' Posteriors , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02315 , year=. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.02315 , url=

    doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Eliciting Numerical Predictive Distributions of

    Julianna Piskorz and Kasia Kobalczyk and Mihaela van der Schaar , booktitle=. Eliciting Numerical Predictive Distributions of. 2026 , url=

    2026

  5. [13]

    and Boull

    Liu, Toni J.B. and Boull. Proc. EMNLP , pages=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  6. [14]

    and Duvenaud, David , booktitle=

    Requeima, James and Bronskill, John and Choi, Dami and Turner, Richard E. and Duvenaud, David , booktitle=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  7. [15]

    and Boull

    Liu, Toni J.B. and Boull. Density estimation with. ICLR , pages=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  8. [16]

    Sun , booktitle=

    Yijia Dai and Zhaolin Gao and Yahya Sattar and Sarah Dean and Jennifer J. Sun , booktitle=. Pre-trained Large Language Models Learn to Predict Hidden. 2025 , url=

    2025

  9. [17]

    Large Language Models as

    Zekri, Oussama and Odonnat, Ambroise and Benechehab, Abdelhakim and Bleistein, Linus and Boull. Large Language Models as. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02724 , year=. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.02724 , url=

    doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Text-Trained

    Jiajun Bao and Nicolas Boull. Text-Trained. AI. 2026 , url=

    2026

  11. [19]

    Hallucination Detection in

    Binkowski, Jakub and Janiak, Denis and Sawczyn, Albert and Gabrys, Bogdan and Kajdanowicz, Tomasz Jan , booktitle=. Hallucination Detection in. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19117 , year=

    A Graph Signal Processing Framework for Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19117 , year=. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.19117 , url=

    doi

  13. [21]

    ICML , year=

    Geometry of Reason: Spectral Signatures of Valid Mathematical Reasoning , author=. ICML , year=

  14. [22]

    2026 , url=

    Sparse Spectral Signatures of Reasoning: Model-Agnostic Verification via Sentence-Level Graph Signals , author=. 2026 , url=

    2026

  15. [23]

    Czechoslov

    Algebraic Connectivity of Graphs , author=. Czechoslov. Math. J. , volume=. 1973 , doi=

    1973

  16. [24]

    1997 , doi=

    Spectral Graph Theory , author=. 1997 , doi=

    1997

  17. [25]

    Oikos , volume=

    Entropy and Diversity , author=. Oikos , volume=. 2006 , doi=

    2006

  18. [26]

    Bell Syst

    A Mathematical Theory of Communication , author=. Bell Syst. Tech. J. , volume=. 1948 , doi=

    1948

  19. [27]

    Information Dimension and the Probabilistic Structure of Chaos , author=. Z. Naturforsch. A , volume=. 1982 , doi=

    1982

  20. [28]

    1982 , url=

    An Introduction to Ergodic Theory , author=. 1982 , url=

    1982

  21. [29]

    Wavelets on Graphs via Spectral Graph Theory , author=. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. , volume=. 2011 , doi=

    2011

  22. [30]

    IEEE Signal Process

    The Emerging Field of Signal Processing on Graphs: Extending High-Dimensional Data Analysis to Networks and Other Irregular Domains , author=. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. , volume=. 2013 , doi=

    2013

  23. [31]

    Graph Signal Processing: Overview, Challenges, and Applications , author=. Proc. IEEE , volume=. 2018 , doi=

    2018

  24. [32]

    and Macar, Uzay and Nanda, Neel and Conmy, Arthur , booktitle=

    Bogdan, Paul C. and Macar, Uzay and Nanda, Neel and Conmy, Arthur , booktitle=. Thought Anchors: Which. 2025 , url=

    2025

  25. [33]

    How Does Reasoning Flow? Tracing Attention-Induced Information Flow for Targeted

    Dong, Zhichen and Li, Yang and Sun, Yuhan and Wang, Weixun and Luo, Yijia and Peng, Zinian and Su, Wenbo and Yu, Cheng and Zheng, Bo and Yan, Junchi , booktitle=. How Does Reasoning Flow? Tracing Attention-Induced Information Flow for Targeted. 2026 , url=

    2026

  26. [34]

    Graph Drawing by Force-Directed Placement , author=. Softw. Pract. Exp. , volume=. 1991 , doi=

    1991

  27. [35]

    Nature , volume=

    Simple Mathematical Models with Very Complicated Dynamics , author=. Nature , volume=. 1976 , doi=

    1976

  28. [36]

    2024 , doi=

    Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering , author=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  29. [37]

    Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow , author=. J. Atmos. Sci. , volume=. 1963 , doi=

    1963

  30. [38]

    Discovering Governing Equations from Data by Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems , author=. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , volume=. 2016 , doi=

    2016

  31. [39]

    ICLR , year=

    Neural Message-Passing on Attention Graphs for Hallucination Detection , author=. ICLR , year=

  32. [40]

    and Oveis Gharan, Shayan and Trevisan, Luca , journal=

    Lee, James R. and Oveis Gharan, Shayan and Trevisan, Luca , journal=. Multiway Spectral Partitioning and Higher-Order. 2014 , doi=

    2014

  33. [41]

    IEEE Trans

    Comparing Measures of Sparsity , author=. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , volume=. 2009 , doi=

    2009

  34. [42]

    IEEE Trans

    Discrete Cosine Transform , author=. IEEE Trans. Comput. , volume=. 1974 , doi=

    1974

  35. [43]

    2010 , url=

    Eisele, Andreas and Chen, Yu , booktitle=. 2010 , url=

    2010

  36. [44]

    Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in

    Tiedemann, J. Parallel Data, Tools and Interfaces in. Proc. LREC , year=

  37. [45]

    Kocetkov, Denis and Li, Raymond and Ben Allal, Loubna and Li, Jia and Mou, Chenghao and Jernite, Yacine and Mitchell, Margaret and Mu. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. , year=

  38. [46]

    Raymond Li and Loubna Ben Allal and Yangtian Zi and Niklas Muennighoff and Denis Kocetkov and Chenghao Mou and Marc Marone and Christopher Akiki and Jia Li and Jenny Chim and Qian Liu and Evgenii Zheltonozhskii and Terry Yue Zhuo and Thomas Wang and Olivier Dehaene and Mishig ...

  39. [47]

    NIPS , year=

    Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehend , author=. NIPS , year=

  40. [48]

    Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networks , author=. Proc. ACL , year=

  41. [49]

    Artificial Relationships in Fiction: A Dataset for Advancing

    Christou, Despina and Tsoumakas, Grigorios , booktitle=. Artificial Relationships in Fiction: A Dataset for Advancing. 2025 , pages=

    2025

  42. [50]

    Wikimedia Downloads , year =

  43. [51]

    A Discourse-Aware Attention Model for Abstractive Summarization of Long Documents , author=. Proc. NAACL-HLT , year=

  44. [52]

    2017 , pages=

    Li, Yanran and Su, Hui and Shen, Xiaoyu and Li, Wenjie and Cao, Ziqiang and Niu, Shuzi , booktitle=. 2017 , pages=

    2017

  45. [53]

    2022 , pages=

    Chalkidis, Ilias and Jana, Abhik and Hartung, Dirk and Bommarito, Michael and Androutsopoulos, Ion and Katz, Daniel and Aletras, Nikolaos , booktitle=. 2022 , pages=

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.