Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 42 references

Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Revoked constraints in multi-turn dialogues keep shaping model behavior even after withdrawal, and this 'behavioral relapse' is measurable, predictable, and repairable through a contract-ledger intervention.

desk verdict Real phenomenon, unusually disciplined measurement, but the per-clause influence metric rests on an ablation the paper itself shows is unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12599 v1 pith:G652QIMT submitted 2026-08-12 cs.AI cs.LG

Haoyuan Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords behavioralrelapserevocationinertiaconstraintinfluencecontractledgerablationprobedialoguestateblack-boxLLMevaluationmulti-turninstructionfollowing
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 tries to establish that revoked constraints in multi-turn LLM dialogues are not dead text: they keep shaping behavior, and this persistence is a measurable, predictable, and repairable property of dialogue state. It introduces a contract ledger that records every constraint, a tombstone for revocations, and a compiled net specification; a sequential ablation probe that estimates each clause's adherence and incremental behavioral effect; and a repair ladder run under matched token and attempt budgets. On a benchmark of 67 coding tasks with 201 executable checkers, relapse at an 8-billion-parameter model rises from 0.011 to 0.403 as constraint load grows, while stronger models show none. If true, this means revocation failures can be audited and corrected through the model API alone, and current multi-turn evaluations that ignore revoked-clause influence miss a systematic failure mode.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the contract ledger, a data structure that pairs every user constraint with an executable checker and a binding history. Revoking a clause writes a tombstone—the record survives but the obligation does not—and the net in-force set is compiled ahead of time into a single pseudo-single-turn specification. On top of this substrate, a sequential ablation probe measures adherence, the pass rate of the clause's checker, and incremental behavioral effect, the difference when the clause's text is replaced by an equal-length neutral placeholder, classifying clauses into five states: adopted, redundant, underpowered, inert, or adverse. A repair ladder then intervenes by editing surface text only, never clause text or checker, and re-tests under token- and attempt-matched budgets.

What would settle it

Re-run the ablation probe on a larger matched sample comparing deletion-based and placeholder-based ablations with independent gold-standard labels of whether the revoked behavior was actually enacted; if the two modes disagree systematically on triage state, the per-clause influence measurements, the five-state diagnoses, and the prospective relapse prediction would not be tied to the clause's causal effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that behavioral relapse—continuing to enact a requirement the user has withdrawn—is not residual noise but a structured function of constraint load. At an 8-billion-parameter operating point, delayed-revocation relapse climbs from 0.011 at low load to 0.403 at high load, with a pre-registered contrast of +0.392 at p≈$10^{-12}$, while stronger models sit at zero. The paper further claims that maintaining a contract ledger and compiling net in-force constraints ahead of time removes observed relapse: 0/2968 episodes with a rule-of-three upper bound of 0.10%, against a 0.192 relapse reduction over a no-ledger verifier-retry baseline. A one-sentence tombstone note causally reduces relapse by +0.048 and survives a placebo control, so even the revocation record itself carries binding force.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that swapping a clause's text for an equal-length neutral placeholder isolates that clause's causal influence on behavior, and the paper's own bridge comparison against a deletion-based ablation agreed no better than chance in 10 clauses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Revoked constraints should be treated as a first-class failure mode in multi-turn evaluation; current benchmarks score compliance with in-force requirements only and would miss this.
  • Ahead-of-time compilation of the net constraint state into a single specification can remove observed relapse at the 8-billion-parameter tier under matched budgets, with a delivery overhead of 1.49×.
  • Even a one-sentence tombstone note recovers about a third of the compilation effect and beats a placebo, so simply telling the model a requirement was revoked has measurable causal force.
  • Adaptive ladder routing adds no detectable gain beyond compiled form at this operating point; the design excludes gains of 1.3 percentage points or more.
  • The probe's diagnosis-time signal predicts later relapse with AUROC 0.897, so at-risk dialogues can be flagged before delivery.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would test whether ledger-based compilation transfers to other domains, such as natural-language instructions or structured data generation, where revocations are common; the paper reports only Python code tasks.
  • The finding that relapse is already present at the revocation turn and does not accumulate with depth suggests the mechanism is a prompt-interpretation or retrieval failure rather than gradual memory decay; white-box studies of attention or similar in-context behavior could test this directly.
  • The zero observed relapse under compilation across all cells, if stable, implies that model-level instruction-following limits are not the bottleneck for this failure: the same model, given a clear compiled specification, can stop honoring withdrawn clauses.
  • Because the measurement pipeline uses only the model API, it could be run at deployment time as a continuous audit, flagging dialogues where a revoked clause is still shaping output; the paper stops at measurement and repair rather than recommending this deployment.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "behavioral relapse" of revoked constraints in multi-turn LLM dialogues: models continue enacting withdrawn requirements. It presents ReBIND, a ledger-based diagnostic system that pairs each constraint with an executable checker, records revocations as tombstones, compiles the net constraint state into a single specification, measures per-clause adherence and incremental behavioral effect with a sequential ablation probe, and routes clauses through a five-state triage and a repair ladder. The empirical claims are built on RELAPSE-Code (67 HumanEval tasks, 201 verified checkers). Headline results are the load-scaling contrast (relapse at an 8B operating point rises from 0.011 at m=2 to 0.403 at m=8; pre-registered primary difference +0.392, 95% CI [+0.300,+0.483], p=1.3e-12), the prospective relapse prediction (AUROC 0.897, 95% CI [0.829,0.963]), the restoration contrast against a no-ledger verifier-retry baseline (0.192, 95% CI [0.134,0.251], p≈1e-10), zero observed relapse under ahead-of-time compilation (0/2968, rule-of-three upper bound ≤0.10%), and a placebo-controlled tombstone-note effect. The paper is unusually careful about pre-registration, matched budgets, conservative scoring semantics, zero counts with denominators, and cost reporting.

Significance. Behavioral relapse is a well-motivated and practically important failure mode, and the paper makes a credible case that it has not previously been isolated with executable per-clause checkers. The load-scaling and restoration results are pre-registered, use cluster-level inference, report zero counts with denominators and rule-of-three bounds, and compare arms under matched checkers, model, and token budget. The reproducibility apparatus (decision-record chain, frozen probe parameters, run identifiers, full cost accounting) is exemplary. If the measurement and prediction instruments are validated, the paper would close a real gap; as it stands, the measurement and prediction contributions rest on an unvalidated ablation choice that the paper's own bridge data call into question.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, §3.2, §5.4] The equal-length neutral-placeholder ablation is load-bearing for the measurement and prediction contributions. Section 4.2 reports that the placeholder ablation and outright deletion "agreed no better than chance (κ=0.000, raw agreement 0.6, n=10 clauses)", yet the paper states that all statistics use the placeholder version. This choice feeds the five-state triage in Table 1, the sequential probe's BC classification, the diagnosis-time risk signal, and therefore the prospective AUROC of 0.897 in §5.4. The placebo-clause calibration in Section C does not validate this counterfactual: it inserts administratively inert text at a single fixed position in a local ledger copy, whereas the scientific question is whether replacing an in-force, content-bearing real clause with a length-matched placeholder preserves the causal effect that deletion would implement. The paper needs an independent ground truth for per-clause causal effect, or a sensitivity analysis reporting the triage labels and the AUROC under a deletion-based BC, or a substantially larger bridge study with a prespecified reconciliation rule. Without one of these, the first two stated gaps (measurement and prediction) are not secured, even though the detector-based existence result and the compilation restoration contrast do not depend on BC.
  2. [§3.3, §3.4] The operational definition of relapse requires that a revoked clause was "previously adopted: it demonstrably shaped earlier answers." Because the benchmark elicits only a single final implementation per episode and contains no assistant turns, no earlier artifact is ever observed; Section 3.3 asserts adoption "in distribution" on the strength of a 0.983 aggregate in-force compliance rate. The detector then labels any post-revocation marker definition as true_relapse even in an episode where that specific marker was never complied with while in force. The authors should either verify per-episode adoption (e.g., with a pre-revocation compliance checkpoint) or report the load-scaling and AUROC results restricted to episodes with verified adoption; without this, the relapse rates may include a small number of delayed first-time compliance events rather than strict relapse.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.2] The sentence "over grid points 0.011, 0.238, and 0.403" should explicitly tie those rates to loads m=2, m=5, and m=8, since the reader otherwise has to reconstruct the mapping from Figure 1a.
  2. [Table 1] The table rows run together in the rendered text (e.g., "high>0adopteddeliver"); adding explicit separators between the AC/BC columns, state names, and actions would substantially improve readability.
  3. [§3.3] The phrase "adoption therefore holds in distribution rather than in-context" is used only once and is not defined elsewhere; a one-sentence explanation of what in-context adoption would require would prevent a reader from misreading the distributional claim as per-episode evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the measurement, prediction, and restoration claims are not constructed from their own targets.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain for each headline claim. The per-clause incremental effect B_C is defined as the difference between the full specification and an equal-length neutral-placeholder ablation; this is an operational definition, not a derivation from the outcome it is later used to explain. The paper's own bridge check shows that the placeholder and deletion ablations disagree, which is a validity limitation on B_C and on the five-state triage built from it, but the paper does not use the deletion contrast as an input and then present it as an output. The prospective AUROC uses a frozen diagnosis-time probe signal whose parameters and stopping rule were set before data collection; later relapse is not used to fit the predictor, so the prediction is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The restoration contrast (VR-BLIND versus REBIND) holds checkers, model, and token budget fixed and varies only whether the ledger's net state is compiled ahead of time; the zero relapse in the compiled arm is an empirical result rather than a definitional consequence, and costs are reported beside the gains. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems; the reference list contains no self-citation, and the cited external works are used for positioning and methodology. The acknowledged limitations (single-position placebo, shared source of the stratification and the AUROC, adjudication sharing semantics with the checker) are validity and independence caveats, not circular reductions. I therefore find no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement chain rests on a small set of hand-set thresholds (probe classification threshold 0.8, zero band 0.2, stopping bounds [3,30]) that are frozen and calibrated by simulation and a placebo protocol rather than derived from first principles. These thresholds determine the BC values and the AUROC. The domain assumptions that marker clauses are behavior-neutral and that parse failures count as non-compliance are reasonable conservative choices, but they shape all relapse rates. The ablation choice is the most fragile ad hoc element: the placeholder-deletion disagreement (κ=0.000) shows the operationalization is not robust. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Probe classification threshold (AC and BC side) = 0.8
    Frozen probe stopping rule: threshold 0.8 for both AC and BC classification, posterior confidence 0.8, k in [3,30], zero band 0.2 (Section B, Section C). Parameters chosen via paired power simulation, not fitted to the target outcome, but they determine measured BC and the prospective AUROC.
  • Zero band for incremental effect BC = ±0.2
    The zero band defines the 'redundant' vs 'inert' decision in the five-state triage. It was calibrated by an executed placebo-clause protocol to match the two-sigma sampling band (1.96σ=0.208), but it remains a hand-set threshold (Section C).
  • Sequential stopping bounds (kmin, kmax) = 3, 30
    The probe stops when both classifications reach posterior confidence 0.8 or at kmax=30 rounds; kmin=3. These bounds are design choices from the simulation (Section 4.3).
  • Repair-retention improvement threshold = 0.2
    After an intervention, the change is kept if adherence improves by at least 0.2 or the clause confidently reaches adopted/redundant (Section 4.4). This threshold affects the repair ladder's behavior but not the headline results.
assumptions (10)
  • standard math Beta-Binomial posterior classification and convolved Beta posteriors are valid for the AC/BC classification
    Section 4.3 uses Beta-Binomial and convolved Beta posteriors for the sequential probe; these are standard Bayesian statistics.
  • standard math Sequential testing (Wald) and paired power simulation correctly calibrate the stopping rule
    Section C injects a Bernoulli sampler into the production probe for calibration; relies on standard sequential analysis.
  • standard math Cluster bootstrap and cluster-level sign test give valid intervals for rare binary outcomes
    Section 5.1 and F use 10^4 resamples over 67 task clusters; standard nonparametric methods.
  • domain assumption Marker clauses (empty helper functions) are behavior-neutral and do not interact with task correctness
    Section D states markers are deliberately behavior-neutral with exact presence checkers; verified by gold acceptance and counterexample rejection.
  • domain assumption Unparseable output is non-compliant, a conservative lower bound on behavioral compliance
    Section 3.2 defines AC over parseable code and checks human divergence only at the format boundary (Section 5.4).
  • domain assumption Adoption holds in distribution: when a marker clause is in force, compliance is near ceiling (0.983 averaged)
    Section 3.3 and Section 5.1 establish this empirically; it grounds the claim that revocation, not adoption failure, is what is measured.
  • domain assumption Best-effort provider-side seed determinism widens intervals but does not bias paired contrasts
    Section H documents one identical request returning 1,032 vs 1,023 tokens; the independence and pairing argument assumes no systematic bias.
  • ad hoc to paper The equal-length neutral-placeholder ablation is the correct counterfactual for measuring BC
    Section 4.2 rejects deletion ablation because it disagreed with the placeholder mode (κ=0.000, n=10); no external ground truth is given for either mode.
  • ad hoc to paper The five-state triage thresholds (0.8, ±0.2) are appropriate operating points
    Section C calibrates them via simulation and a placebo protocol; the 1.96σ=0.208 match is the justification, but the thresholds remain hand-set.
  • ad hoc to paper The tombstone and placebo note texts are representative instances of their categories
    Section G freezes three note texts; the placebo is one frozen text at one position, and the paper warns this bounds, not excludes, a note-per-se effect (Section 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G652QIMT

@misc{pith2026260812599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G652QIMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12599}
}
abstract

Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia. No existing instrument measures this influence per clause, predicts it before delivery, or repairs it under matched budgets. \sysname{} closes the three gaps through the model API alone: a contract ledger pairs every constraint with an executable checker, records revocations as tombstones, and compiles the net constraint state ahead of time into a single specification; a sequential ablation probe measures per-clause adherence and incremental behavioral effect; a repair ladder operates under token- and attempt-matched budgets. On \dataname{} (\NTasks{} HumanEval tasks, \NClauses{} verified checkers), relapse at an 8B operating point climbs from \ScaleDelayedMTwo{} to \ScaleDelayedMEight{} as constraint load grows, while stronger models sit at floor. Under matched checkers, model, and budget, ahead-of-time compilation significantly reduces relapse against a no-ledger verifier-retry baseline (\RestoreDiff{}, 95\% CI \RestoreDiffCI{}, $p$ \RestoreDiffP{}); adaptive ladder interventions stacked on top add no detectable gain (95\% confidence excludes gains $\geq$ \LadderExcludedGain{}). The probe predicts relapse before delivery (AUROC \AurocPrimary{}); a one-sentence tombstone note recovers about a third of the compilation effect and survives a placebo control. At \CostDeliveryFactor{} delivery overhead and \CostTotalHedged{} of API compute for every result, revocation failure becomes a measurable, predictable, and repairable property of dialogue state rather than an invisible one.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Behavioral relapse of revoked constraints: (a) load scaling; (b) temporal shape. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Laban, Philippe and Hayashi, Hiroaki and Zhou, Yingbo and Neville, Jennifer , journal =

  2. [2]

    Models Recall What They Violate: Constraint Adherence in Multi-Turn

    Kruthof, Garvin , journal =. Models Recall What They Violate: Constraint Adherence in Multi-Turn

    work page

  3. [3]

    and Pombal, Jos

    Canaverde, Beatriz and Alves, Duarte M. and Pombal, Jos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06353 , year =

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    2026 , note =

    Lee, Jaeyun and Koh, Junyoung and Tok, Zeynel and Batra, Hunar and Clark, Ronald , journal =. 2026 , note =

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    One Battle After Another: Probing

    Jia, Qi and Shen, Ye and Song, Xiujie and Zhang, Kaiwei and Wang, Shibo and Pei, Dun and Zhu, Xiangyang and Zhai, Guangtao , journal =. One Battle After Another: Probing

    work page

  6. [6]

    Let Me Speak Freely?

    Tam, Zhi Rui and Wu, Cheng-Kuang and Tsai, Yi-Lin and Lin, Chieh-Yen and Lee, Hung-yi and Chen, Yun-Nung , journal =. Let Me Speak Freely?

    work page

  7. [7]

    Lim, Soohan and Hahn, Joonghyuk and Park, Hyunwoo and Ko, Sang-Ki and Han, Yo-Sub , journal =

    work page

  8. [8]

    Li, Yubo and Krishnan, Ramayya and Padman, Rema , journal =

    work page

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    and Morstatter, Fred and Lerman, Kristina , journal =

    Guo, Siyi and Marmarelis, Myrl G. and Morstatter, Fred and Lerman, Kristina , journal =. Estimating Causal Effects of Text Interventions Leveraging

  2. [10]

    Journal of Causal Inference , volume =

    Role of Placebo Samples in Observational Studies , author =. Journal of Causal Inference , volume =

  3. [11]

    Poon, Manhin and Dai, XiangXiang and Liu, Xutong and Kong, Fang and Lui, John C. S. and Zuo, Jinhang , journal =. Online Multi-

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

    Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 , year =

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year =

    Qwen3 Technical Report , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 , year =

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.20534 , year =

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume =

    A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , author =. Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume =

  8. [16]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , volume =

    Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing , author =. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , volume =

  9. [17]

    and Lippman-Hand, Abby , journal =

    Hanley, James A. and Lippman-Hand, Abby , journal =. If Nothing Goes Wrong, Is Everything All Right?

  10. [18]

    An Introduction to the Bootstrap , author =

  11. [19]

    The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , volume =

    Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , author =. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , volume =

  12. [20]

    Epidemiology , volume =

    Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies , author =. Epidemiology , volume =

  13. [21]

    Communications of the ACM , volume =

    Datasheets for Datasets , author =. Communications of the ACM , volume =

  14. [22]

    Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , year =

    Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarks , author =. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , year =

    2023

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911 , year =

    Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911 , year =

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jiang, Yuxin and Wang, Yufei and Zeng, Xingshan and others , booktitle =

  17. [25]

    He, Yun and Jin, Di and Wang, Chaoqi and others , journal =

  18. [26]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =

    Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts , author =. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =

  19. [27]

    First Conference on Language Modeling , year =

    Measuring and Controlling Instruction (In)Stability in Language Model Dialogs , author =. First Conference on Language Modeling , year =

  20. [28]

    Zheng, Lianmin and Chiang, Wei-Lin and Sheng, Ying and others , booktitle =. Judging

  21. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 , year =

    Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 , year =

  22. [30]

    Madaan, Aman and Tandon, Niket and Gupta, Prakhar and others , booktitle =

  23. [31]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 , year =

    Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 , year =

  24. [32]

    Teaching Large Language Models to

    Chen, Xinyun and Lin, Maxwell and Sch. Teaching Large Language Models to. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  25. [33]

    International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

    Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation? , author =. International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09702 , year =

    Efficient Guided Generation for Large Language Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09702 , year =

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    The Instruction Hierarchy: Training

    Wallace, Eric and Xiao, Kai and Leike, Reimar and Weng, Lilian and Heidecke, Johannes and Beutel, Alex , journal =. The Instruction Hierarchy: Training

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09527 , year =

    Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques for Language Models , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09527 , year =

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Applying

    Meyer, Bertrand , journal =. Applying

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , year =

    Budzianowski, Pawe. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , year =

    2018

  31. [39]

    Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How

    Sclar, Melanie and Choi, Yejin and Tsvetkov, Yulia and Suhr, Alane , booktitle =. Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00640 , year =

    Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluations , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00640 , year =

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Preregistering

    van Miltenburg, Emiel and van der Lee, Chris and Krahmer, Emiel , booktitle =. Preregistering

  34. [42]

    Transformer Circuits Thread , year =

    In-context Learning and Induction Heads , author =. Transformer Circuits Thread , year =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.