Algorithmic Capabilities of Random Transformers

Trained transformer models have been found to implement interpretable procedures for tasks like arithmetic and associative recall, but little is understood about how the circuits that implement these procedures originate during training. To what extent do they depend on the supervisory signal provided to models, and to what extent are they attributable to behavior already present in models at the beginning of training? To investigate these questions, we investigate what functions can be learned by randomly initialized transformers in which only the embedding layers are optimized, so that the only input--output mappings learnable from data are those already implemented (up to a choice of encoding scheme) by the randomly initialized model. We find that these random transformers can perform a wide range of meaningful algorithmic tasks, including modular arithmetic, in-weights and in-context associative recall, decimal addition, parenthesis balancing, and even some aspects of natural language text generation. Our results indicate that some algorithmic capabilities are present in transformers (and accessible via appropriately structured inputs) even before these models are trained. Code is available at https://github.com/fjzzq2002/random_transformers.

Grokking as Compression: A Nonlinear Complexity Perspective

We attribute grokking, the phenomenon where generalization is much delayed after memorization, to compression. To do so, we define linear mapping number (LMN) to measure network complexity, which is a generalized version of linear region number for ReLU networks. LMN can nicely characterize neural network compression before generalization. Although the $L_2$ norm has been a popular choice for characterizing model complexity, we argue in favor of LMN for a number of reasons: (1) LMN can be naturally interpreted as information/computation, while $L_2$ cannot. (2) In the compression phase, LMN has linear relations with test losses, while $L_2$ is correlated with test losses in a complicated nonlinear way. (3) LMN also reveals an intriguing phenomenon of the XOR network switching between two generalization solutions, while $L_2$ does not. Besides explaining grokking, we argue that LMN is a promising candidate as the neural network version of the Kolmogorov complexity since it explicitly considers local or conditioned linear computations aligned with the nature of modern artificial neural networks.

The Clock and the Pizza: Two Stories in Mechanistic Explanation of Neural Networks

Do neural networks, trained on well-understood algorithmic tasks, reliably rediscover known algorithms for solving those tasks? Several recent studies, on tasks ranging from group arithmetic to in-context linear regression, have suggested that the answer is yes. Using modular addition as a prototypical problem, we show that algorithm discovery in neural networks is sometimes more complex. Small changes to model hyperparameters and initializations can induce the discovery of qualitatively different algorithms from a fixed training set, and even parallel implementations of multiple such algorithms. Some networks trained to perform modular addition implement a familiar Clock algorithm; others implement a previously undescribed, less intuitive, but comprehensible procedure which we term the Pizza algorithm, or a variety of even more complex procedures. Our results show that even simple learning problems can admit a surprising diversity of solutions, motivating the development of new tools for characterizing the behavior of neural networks across their algorithmic phase space.