Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Answer-position attention is an unreliable target for context-pruning routers; causal evidence sets are stable, annotation-free, and route at 99–100% on multi-hop where attention-based routing swings from 36% to 98%.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-01 07:09 UTC pith:TKU5IVBS

load-bearing objection Honest, careful empirical test of attention-as-importance with known evidence: causal evidence sets beat answer-position attention for routing on synthetic retrieval, and the conflict transfers to some pretrained facts; the main caveat is that the headline multi-hop gap has not been shown on real models, and the paper says so itself. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21692 v2 pith:TKU5IVBS submitted 2026-07-23 cs.LG cs.CL

Learning What Matters: Supervising Global Context Pruning with Causal Evidence Sets

Jim Allchin This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CL
keywords context pruningsparse attentioncausal evidence setsattention distillationmulti-hop retrievalmasking interventionsroutingannotation-free supervision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tests a core assumption behind sparse-attention systems: that a dense model's attention weights show which context blocks its answer depends on. Using synthetic retrieval tasks where the true evidence is known exactly, it shows the assumption fails. Attention at the answer position includes outdated facts the model has learned to ignore, can skip the middle step of a two-step reference chain, and varies across training runs that use identical evidence. A router supervised on causal evidence sets—blocks recovered by masking interventions as necessary or sufficient for the answer—reaches 99–100% routed accuracy on every converged teacher in the multi-hop task, while the same router distilled from attention ranges from 36% to 98%, tracking how often it selects the chain's middle block. The causal labels need no human annotation; they are recoverable from the frozen teacher by masking alone, and routers trained on recovered labels nearly match annotation-trained ones. The same conflict appears in frozen pretrained models: Qwen2.5-3B attends more to an outdated fact than its replacement on 58% of correctly answered examples, and Gemma-2-9B rises from 56% to 99% accuracy when restricted to the two relevant sentences.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that attention weights at the answer position are not a dependable map of what a model's answer depends on, and that causal evidence sets—computed by masking context blocks and observing whether the answer changes—are a stable and better supervision target for context-pruning routers. On the multi-hop retrieval task, where a chain of two pointers ends in a value, causal supervision routes at 0.99–1.00 on every converged teacher, while attention distillation ranges from 0.36 to 0.98, with the variance tracking how often the router selects the chain's middle block. Dense accuracy does not reveal which teacher a practitioner has, since all four teachers solve mu

What carries the argument

The central object is the causal evidence set, a per-example label defined by masking interventions. A block is included if it is individually sufficient—restricting attention to it and the query preserves the answer—or individually necessary—masking it changes the answer. The intervention adds -10^4 to the attention logits of the block's positions at every layer, leaving token positions unchanged. The router architecture also matters: a mean-pooling router collapses pointer source and destination keys and fails on chains under every supervision, while a chain router with per-offset projections and two transformer layers over block summaries can express the selection. A backward max-product

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic task mixture—small rotary-only teachers, direct value supervision without an answer marker, and 32-block contexts—produces retrieval circuits that faithfully represent how real pretrained models use attention and context; if the multi-hop attention failure is specific to this protocol, the central routing-ordering result may not transfer.

What would settle it

Run the paper's multi-hop task with five new seeds. If the attention-distilled router reaches 0.99 or better on all five (as the causal router does), while dense accuracy stays high, the claim that attention is an unreliable routing target on this task would be falsified; the paper's seed 1 already reaches 0.98, so the claim depends on the spread, and a uniform 0.99+ across seeds would collapse it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Context-pruning routers should be supervised with causal evidence sets rather than distilled attention when the task has multi-step or conflicting evidence; the paper shows a 60+ point swing in routed accuracy due to supervision choice alone.
  • Dense accuracy does not indicate whether a teacher's attention is a safe routing target: all four multi-hop teachers solve the task at 98% or better, yet attention-distilled routers range from 36% to 98%.
  • Annotation-free routing is feasible: a masking-effect estimator with a 0.25-nat floor recovers labels that match annotated sets on 87% of examples and trains routers near annotation-trained performance, and on Qwen2.5-3B recovery is exact (1.000 agreement) up to 128 records.
  • Attention remains useful for per-query, per-layer thinning—where it routes at 94–100% on multi-hop—but that protocol keeps the entire context resident and prunes no context; it cannot substitute for global pruning.
  • Tasks with distributed computation (aggregation/counting) are outside sparse routing's reach: an oracle keeping every marked block stays at chance until the full context, so the model's computational sufficient set can be strictly larger than the task's.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the failure of answer-position attention may be partly a protocol artifact; the paper's Appendix B notes that adding an answer marker prevents retrieval circuits from forming at 10.7M scale. A larger-scale training run with an answer marker that still forms a retrieval circuit might show better answer-position coverage, so the paper's strongest transfer evidence is the pretrai
  • Editorial inference: the annotation-free estimator's scope is narrower than its headline; in the two-disjoint-chains topology (Appendix J), both regimes fail and no estimator recovers a full chain, so practical deployment would need a fallback for evidence topologies where no block is necessary and no singleton is sufficient.
  • Editorial inference: a path-aware readout (backward max-product trace) recovers the chain at a fraction of the intervention cost, suggesting future routers might be trained directly on path traces rather than interventions, though the paper tested the trace only as a label oracle on multi-hop, not on obsolete-write or pretrained settings.
  • Editorial inference: because label recovery costs one masked forward per block, scaling to document-length contexts requires approximation; the paper's own wall-clock estimates (a million examples in under a week at 16 records) may not hold at 128 records.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether attention weights at the answer position are a reliable supervision target for context-pruning routers. On synthetic retrieval tasks with known evidence, the authors show that attention and causally-defined evidence sets (recovered by masking interventions) disagree in specific ways: attention includes obsolete writes, misses the middle block of multi-hop chains, and varies across seeds with identical evidence. Routing experiments with identical architectures show that causal supervision is more accurate and stable than attention distillation, especially on multi-hop retrieval (0.99–1.00 vs 0.36–0.98). The paper also proposes an annotation-free estimator of causal evidence sets and demonstrates transfer of the attention/causal conflict to frozen pretrained models on conflicting-fact tasks.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant contribution to sparse attention research: it provides the first controlled testbed where attention as an importance signal is compared against ground-truth evidence, and it shows a practical alternative (causal evidence sets) that can be recovered without annotations. The paper's strengths are its careful experimental design (masked-block direction checks, mask vs overwrite agreement, property-tested task generators, per-seed tables, explicit confidence intervals), its reproducible pipeline, and its honest treatment of limitations. The multi-hop result is striking and the annotation-free recovery is useful. The main caveat is the transferability of the multi-hop failure to real models.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5, Table 4, Appendix B, §10] The headline multi-hop result is established exclusively on synthetic 10.7M-parameter teachers trained with direct value supervision, because Appendix B states that inserting an answer marker between the query key and value prevents retrieval circuits from forming at this scale. Real pretrained models predict after an answer marker. The paper's transfer experiments in §7 cover only unique retrieval and conflicting facts (single-record tasks); no natural-language multi-step chain task is tested. Consequently, the abstract's general conclusion that 'Attention ... shows where a model looks, not what its answer depends on' and the conclusion that 'the readout fails rather than the weights' rest on a phenomenon that has not been observed in a real model. If the direct-supervision quirk is responsible for the answer-position skipping, the central routing-ordering result may be an artifact of t
  2. [§6, Appendix J, Table 19] The claim that 'the causal sets need no annotation' is potentially misleading. While the recovery estimator works on the main task mixture, Appendix J shows that on two disjoint two-hop chains, the floored estimator recovers a complete chain on only 0.0–6.7% of examples (Table 19). The paper does acknowledge this in §10, but the contribution bullet in §1 ('An annotation-free estimator of the causal evidence set') and the abstract's phrasing should more clearly state the scope: the estimator handles evidence that is either replaceable block-by-block or necessary block-by-block, and fails when neither holds. This does not undermine the routing-ordering result, which uses annotated labels for the headline multi-hop comparison, but it tempers the annotation-free contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'the same selector trained on causal evidence sets' could be misread as the same trained weights; rephrase to 'the same selector architecture trained on causal evidence sets.'
  2. [§2.1] The protocol detail about direct value supervision (no answer marker) is critical to interpreting the multi-hop results; consider moving it from Appendix B to the main text.
  3. [Table 3] The random baseline for duplicate evidence (0.16) is notably higher than other random rows; a short footnote explaining why (e.g., multiple copies increase the chance that a random selection includes a correct record) would be helpful.
  4. [§7] The sentence 'The causal router matches the dense model on both tasks and stays there when the record count doubles past training' applies to Qwen2.5-3B; specify this in the main text, as the next sentence transitions to 7B.
  5. [Appendix C] 'Adam at 10^-3' should be 'Adam with learning rate 10^-3' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the causal evidence labels come from interventions on frozen teachers, not from the router's own outputs, and the routing comparisons are evaluated on held-out examples with matched architecture and budget.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The causal evidence set is defined operationally by masking interventions on frozen teachers (Section 2.3), independently of any router prediction. The claimed improvement of causal supervision over attention distillation is tested by training routers on these labels and evaluating them on held-out examples (Section 5, Table 4), so the result is not forced by construction. The annotation-free recovery estimator uses a masking-effect floor that is a hyperparameter, not a fitted version of the target quantity, and its robustness is swept in Appendices E and J; the final routers still generalize to held-out examples. The pretrained-model experiments are empirical transfers, and the paper's acknowledged limitations are scope concerns (synthetic tasks, small teachers, limited natural-language tasks), not circular reasoning. There are no self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no load-bearing appeal to the authors' prior work. The only way the result could be circular would be if the causal labels were derived from the router's own selections or if the evaluation reused training labels, neither of which occurs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

The paper is honest about its free parameters and scope: the main threshold (0.25-nat floor) is explicit and tested; task geometry and budgets are transparent; the estimator's two-regime assumption is stated. No 'graviton'-style invented entity. The main axioms are the synthetic-to-real transfer assumption, the masking-operator-as-dependence semantics, and the direct-supervision protocol quirk.

free parameters (6)
  • 0.25-nat floor for recovery estimator = 0.25 nats
    The annotation-free estimator keeps ranked blocks whose masking effect clears a 0.25-nat floor (Section 6). The paper explicitly calls this 'validated on one task mixture' and sweeps it only to show the choice is not delicate downward (Appendix E, J). It is a calibration parameter, not a constant with independent meaning.
  • Block width and count (n=32, w=8) = 32 blocks, 8 tokens
    Task geometry chosen by the authors to make retrieval circuits trainable; routing results at 10% budget depend on this scale.
  • Router budget k = ceil(0.1 n) = 3-4 blocks depending on n
    Fixed at 10% of context, a protocol choice; oracle budget curves show k-dependence.
  • Two-record budget for pretrained routers = 2 records
    Kept 2 records for the pretrained arm; the router's accuracy at doubled record count depends on this budget.
  • Softmin annealing schedule for causal coverage loss = anneals linearly to zero over first 80% of training
    A training hyperparameter for the causal router; results hold across router seeds but the schedule is hand-set.
  • Teacher/rotary-only configuration = 6 layers, 8 heads, width 384, RoPE theta=10^4, 30k-45k steps
    Teacher scale/architecture chosen for trainability; the paper notes learned absolute positions never train at this scale, so the encoding axis is untested.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Sufficiency is verified by masking attention with a large negative bias (-10^4) at every layer, and this operator preserves token positions and information removal semantics.
    Section 2.2. The claim that a set is sufficient assumes the attention-mask operator captures what it means for the model to 'depend on' context. Appendix H partially validates against position-preserving content overwrite, but mask-vs-overwrite diverges on Gemma conflicting facts and aggregation, so the operator is not neutral for all claims.
  • domain assumption The synthetic tasks train circuits representative of real retrieval/multi-hop behavior.
    Sections 2 and 7. The core measurements are on synthetic block tasks; transfer to pretrained models assumes the same conflict manifests. Paper's own Section 10 states tasks are synthetic and teachers small; the pretrained experiments cover only two tasks.
  • domain assumption Direct value supervision without an answer marker is required for retrieval circuits to form at this scale.
    Appendix B. The paper records that placing a marker between query key and supervised value prevents retrieval circuits from forming. This is a protocol-specific empirical fact; if it indicates the synthetic tasks use nonstandard circuits, the transfer claim weakens.
  • domain assumption Answer-position attention readout is the relevant distillation signal to compare.
    The paper defines attention labels as k blocks with largest answer-position attention mass, pooled over layers (Section 2.3). This is a choice; Appendix K shows a backward max-product trace recovers most of the multi-hop gap, so the negative result is specifically about the readout, not attention in general, as the paper itself concludes.
  • domain assumption Causal evidence sets are per-example and per-teacher, and the teacher is frozen.
    The intervention labels are measured on frozen teachers; the paper deliberately avoids end-to-end co-adaptation (Aquino-Michaels). The claim that causal evidence sets are the right target presupposes a fixed dense model whose answers define dependence.
  • domain assumption SQuAD evidence sentences carry a counterfactual substitute answer so that only reading the kept evidence supports the correct choice.
    Section 7. Required to turn natural QA into a task with known evidence. The authors note 'these models answer many SQuAD questions from memory', so counterfactual substitution is needed. This construction may change the nature of the task relative to real QA.
invented entities (3)
  • Causal evidence set independent evidence
    purpose: Supervision target for context-pruning routers: per-example set of blocks that are either individually sufficient or individually necessary, recovered by masking interventions.
    Not a physical entity but a defined object; it is measured from the model by interventions, and its utility is evaluated on held-out routed accuracy. The recovery method gives an operational handle independent of annotations, e.g., exact 1.000 recovery on Qwen2.5-3B.
  • Floored estimator / 0.25-nat floor independent evidence
    purpose: Annotation-free estimator of causal evidence sets: keep ranked blocks clearing a 0.25-nat log-probability drop floor, capped at budget, fall back to sufficient singletons.
    Operational procedure with measurable output; validated against hidden annotations (87% match, 92% cover) and by routing.
  • Chain router (offset-aware projection + two transformer layers over block summaries) independent evidence
    purpose: Router architecture expressive enough to select a multi-hop chain (mean pooling collapses source/destination keys).
    A model architecture, not a physical entity; its behaviour is evaluated directly by routed accuracy.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning What Matters: Supervising Global Context Pruning with Causal Evidence Sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKU5IVBS

@misc{pith2026260721692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning What Matters: Supervising Global Context Pruning with Causal Evidence Sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKU5IVBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21692}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Sparse attention prunes a long context to the blocks a model needs, and the usual selector is distilled from a dense teacher's attention. That assumes attention shows which context the answer depends on. We test the assumption on retrieval tasks where the evidence is known exactly, by masking context and measuring whether the answer changes. Attention and causal dependence disagree, and selectors inherit the disagreement. Teachers attend to outdated facts they have learned to ignore, and attend differently across training runs that use the same evidence. In a two-step reference task, attention at the answer position can skip the intermediate step, and how often it skips varies with the training run: selecting one block set per pass, a selector distilled from attention routes at 36% to 98% across teachers, the same selector trained on causal evidence sets reaches 99% or better on every one, and dense accuracy does not say which teacher you have. Where each query selects its own blocks attention also succeeds, but that prunes no context. The causal sets need no annotation: recovered from the frozen teacher by masking alone, they train routers that nearly match annotation-trained ones. Pretrained models show the same conflict. Qwen2.5-3B attends more to an outdated fact than its replacement on 58% of the examples it answers correctly, and restricting Gemma-2-9B to the two relevant sentences raises its accuracy from 56% to 99%. The answer-position readout that distillation uses shows where a model looks, not what its answer depends on; composing attention across layers recovers most of the multi-hop gap, so the readout fails rather than the weights.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21692 by Jim Allchin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: gives the oracle accuracy-against-budget curve behind the routing boundary of Section 8, with the annotated sufficient blocks kept first in position order, so it upper-bounds any router. 1 2 4 8 16 32 block budget k (oracle selection) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 accuracy unique retrieval multi-hop (chain of 3) aggregation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Redundancy separates the estimators. As planted copies of the answering record increase, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Routed accuracy at the 10% block budget. Single-record rows use pooling routers and are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frozen Qwen2.5-Instruct on the conflicting-fact task. Scale fixes the behavior (accuracy) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Quantifying attention flow in transformers

    Samira Abnar and Willem Zuidema. Quantifying attention flow in transformers. In Proceedings of ACL, 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Spotattention: Plug-in block-sparse routing for pretrained long-context transformers

    Huzama Ahmad and Se-Young Yun. Spotattention: Plug-in block-sparse routing for pretrained long-context transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.22874, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Routing absorption in sparse attention: Why random gates are hard to beat

    Keston Aquino-Michaels. Routing absorption in sparse attention: Why random gates are hard to beat. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02227, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Zoology: Measuring and improving recall in efficient language models

    Simran Arora, Sabri Eyuboglu, Aman Timalsina, Isys Johnson, Michael Poli, James Zou, Atri Rudra, and Christopher R \'e . Zoology: Measuring and improving recall in efficient language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04927, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Quantifying llm attention-head stability: Implications for circuit universality

    Karan Bali, Jack Stanley, Praneet Suresh, and Danilo Bzdok. Quantifying llm attention-head stability: Implications for circuit universality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16740, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Peters, and Arman Cohan

    Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Finding transformer circuits with edge pruning

    Adithya Bhaskar, Alexander Wettig, Dan Friedman, and Danqi Chen. Finding transformer circuits with edge pruning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adri \`a Garriga-Alonso

    Arthur Conmy, Augustine N. Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adri \`a Garriga-Alonso. Towards automated circuit discovery for mechanistic interpretability. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Seerattention: Learning intrinsic sparse attention in your llms

    Yizhao Gao, Zhichen Zeng, Dayou Du, Shijie Cao, Hayden Kwok-Hay So, Ting Cao, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang. Seerattention: Learning intrinsic sparse attention in your llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13276, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. Attention is not explanation. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 2019

    2019

  11. [11]

    Abdi, Dongsheng Li, Chin-Yew Lin, Yuqing Yang, and Lili Qiu

    Huiqiang Jiang, Yucheng Li, Chengruidong Zhang, Qianhui Wu, Xufang Luo, Surin Ahn, Zhenhua Han, Amir H. Abdi, Dongsheng Li, Chin-Yew Lin, Yuqing Yang, and Lili Qiu. Minference 1.0: Accelerating pre-filling for long-context llms via dynamic sparse attention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Reformer: The efficient transformer

    Nikita Kitaev, ukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. Reformer: The efficient transformer. In Proceedings of ICLR, 2020

    2020

  13. [13]

    Snapkv: Llm knows what you are looking for before generation

    Yuhong Li, Yingbing Huang, Bowen Yang, Bharat Venkitesh, Acyr Locatelli, Hanchen Ye, Tianle Cai, Patrick Lewis, and Deming Chen. Snapkv: Llm knows what you are looking for before generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Moba: Mixture of block attention for long-context llms

    Enzhe Lu, Zhejun Jiang, Jingyuan Liu, Yulun Du, Tao Jiang, Chao Hong, Shaowei Liu, Weiran He, Enming Yuan, Yuzhi Wang, et al. Moba: Mixture of block attention for long-context llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13189, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Locating and editing factual associations in gpt

    Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in gpt. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  16. [16]

    Piotr Nawrot, Robert Li, Renjie Huang, Sebastian Ruder, Kelly Marchisio, and Edoardo M. Ponti. The sparse frontier: Sparse attention trade-offs in transformer llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17768, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    In-context learning and induction heads

    Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, et al. In-context learning and induction heads. Transformer Circuits Thread, 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers

    Aurko Roy, Mohammad Saffar, Ashish Vaswani, and David Grangier. Efficient content-based sparse attention with routing transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9: 0 53--68, 2021

    2021

  19. [19]

    Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. Is attention interpretable? In Proceedings of ACL, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    Quest: Query-aware sparsity for efficient long-context llm inference

    Jiaming Tang, Yilong Zhao, Kan Zhu, Guangxuan Xiao, Baris Kasikci, and Song Han. Quest: Query-aware sparsity for efficient long-context llm inference. In Proceedings of ICML, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis

    Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Attention is not not explanation

    Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. Attention is not not explanation. In Proceedings of EMNLP-IJCNLP, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Retrieval head mechanistically explains long-context factuality

    Wenhao Wu, Yizhong Wang, Guangxuan Xiao, Hao Peng, and Yao Fu. Retrieval head mechanistically explains long-context factuality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15574, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Jingyang Yuan, Huazuo Gao, Damai Dai, Junyu Luo, Liang Zhao, Zhengyan Zhang, Zhenda Xie, Y. X. Wei, Lean Wang, Zhiping Xiao, Yuqing Wang, Chong Ruan, Ming Zhang, Wenfeng Liang, and Wangding Zeng. Native sparse attention: Hardware-aligned and natively trainable sparse attention. In Proceedings of ACL, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences

    Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Kumar Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontanon, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    H2o: Heavy-hitter oracle for efficient generative inference of large language models

    Zhenyu Zhang, Ying Sheng, Tianyi Zhou, Tianlong Chen, Lianmin Zheng, Ruisi Cai, Zhao Song, Yuandong Tian, Christopher R \'e , Clark Barrett, Zhangyang Wang, and Beidi Chen. H2o: Heavy-hitter oracle for efficient generative inference of large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.