PreprintCited by 106semigroups and automata theoryComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsNeural Networks and Applications

Looped Transformers for Length Generalization

Open access
Fan, Ying, Du, Yilun, Ramchandran, Kannan, Lee, Kangwook·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Recent work has shown that Transformers trained from scratch can successfully solve various arithmetic and algorithmic tasks, such as adding numbers and computing parity. While these Transformers generalize well on unseen inputs of the same length, they struggle with length generalization, i.e., handling inputs of unseen lengths. In this work, we demonstrate that looped Transformers with an adaptive number of steps significantly improve length generalization. We focus on tasks with a known iterative solution, involving multiple iterations of a RASP-L operation - a length-generalizable operation that can be expressed by a finite-sized Transformer. We train looped Transformers using our proposed learning algorithm and observe that they learn highly length-generalizable solutions for various tasks.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Looped Transformers with an adaptive number of looped steps and step-dependent supervision improve length generalization on algorithmic tasks with known iterative n-RASP-L solutions. Trained only on end-to-end input-output pairs plus the number of steps, they outperform NTP baselines on Parity, Copy, Addition, and related tasks.

Key findings

  • Looped Transformers significantly improve length generalization: for Parity, the model generalizes to more than 40 digits near perfectly when trained with lengths up to 20 digits.
  • For Addition and Copy, where next-token prediction failed when tested at maximum training length +10, the looped model still performs almost perfectly.
  • Variants of NTP can improve generalization—NTP-Loop helps on Addition, Copy, and Multiplication; NTP-Pause helps slightly on Binary Sum and Unique Set—but all fall behind the adaptive-depth looped method.
  • The maximum-confidence stopping criterion reaches lowest cross-entropy when generalization is near perfect; per-sample stopping works almost as well for converging tasks (Addition, Copy, Multiplication, Unique Set) but worse for non-converging tasks (Parity, Binary Sum).

Methods

  • The paper defines n-RASP-L problems: tasks solvable by T(n) sequential applications of a RASP-L operation P′, with pre- and post-processing, and gives n-RASP-L solutions for Parity, Copy, and Addition.
  • It trains looped decoder-only GPT-2 models with NoPE, input injection, and step-dependent supervision on final answers only, without intermediate-step supervision; training data include (x, y) pairs and the pre-defined number of steps T(n).
  • Experiments cover Parity, Copy, Binary Addition, Binary Sum, Binary Multiplication, and Unique Set, with curriculum learning, AdamW, batch size 64, 100k gradient steps, evaluation on 6400 random samples, and mean exact match accuracy from five seeds; baselines include vanilla NTP, NTP with pause tokens, and NTP with weight-tied layers.

Limitations

  • The paper states that n-RASP-L does not support tasks requiring multiple loops followed by each other, and extending to multiple loops is future work.
  • Direct looped training can be computationally demanding when the number of looped steps is large; stopping gradient tracking for earlier steps may help but could trade off performance.
  • The authors state they train for a limited number of steps and lengths due to limited computing resources, use NoPE for simplicity, and require the ground-truth number of steps in training data, an additional requirement compared with normal end-to-end training.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2409.15647

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

7 of 28 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Even the largest and latest LLMs trained on much of the existing text on the Internet still struggle with length generalization.

    “However, even the largest and latest LLMs like Achiam et al. (2023) trained on much of the existing text on the Internet, still struggle with length generalization (Wu et al., 2023;Anil et al., 2022;Lee et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wu et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Anil et al., 2022 source

      The Conclusion (p. 9) says length generalization remains challenging for language models up to the 100B-parameter scale, and Section 3.1 (p. 4) reports weak extrapolation in the models tested. The paper does not establish the claim for the latest models cited in the sentence or for models trained on much of the Internet’s text; it also reports substantial improvements with few-shot scratchpad prompting. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Lee et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data

    Looped Transformers with an adaptive number of steps significantly improve length generalization.

    “In this work, we demonstrate that looped Transformers with an adaptive number of steps significantly improve length generalization.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · plain
      “Empirically, we show that looped Transformers with an adaptive number of steps can successfully length-generalize to longer lengths simply by appropriately adapting the number of loops at inference time, indicating that our approach encourages the model to implicitly learn the necessary steps to solve a task.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · boosted
      “(3) Empirically, we show that our proposed method outperforms the baseline approaches in terms of length generalization performance (Section 6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Looped Transformers trained with the proposed learning algorithm learn highly length-generalizable solutions for various tasks.

    “We train looped Transformers using our proposed learning algorithm and observe that they learn highly length-generalizable solutions for various tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    NTP-Loop improves generalization in Addition, Copy and Multiplication compared with vanilla NTP.

    “Compared with vanilla NTP, we observe that NTP-Loop could lead to improved generalization in tasks like Addition, Copy and Multiplication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The proposed method outperforms baseline approaches in terms of length generalization performance.

    “(3) Empirically, we show that our proposed method outperforms the baseline approaches in terms of length generalization performance (Section 6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 18
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Copy with unique tokens can be easily solved by an inductive head, but copy with repeated tokens does not length-generalize with vanilla NTP training.

    “It has been shown that copy with unique tokens could be easily solved by inductive head (Olsson et al., 2022), but copy with repeated tokens (e.g., binary) does not length-generalize with vanilla NTP training (Zhou et al., 2024a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Olsson et al., 2022 source
    • cites Zhou et al., 2024a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Positional embeddings greatly affect Transformers' ability to generalize to longer lengths.

    “Positional embeddings have been shown to greatly affect Transformers' ability to generalize to longer lengths (Press et al., 2021;Kazemnejad et al., 2024;Ruoss et al., 2023;Su et al., 2024;Li et al., 2023;Cho et al., 2024;Sabbaghi et al., 2024;McLeish et al., 2024;Golovneva et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Press et al., 2021 source
    • cites Kazemnejad et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ruoss et al., 2023 source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    To learn a model that can effectively generalize to longer problems, it is important to consider architectures that can adaptively adjust the computational budget to the difficulty of the tasks.

    “To learn a model that can effectively generalize to longer problems, it is important to consider architectures that can adaptively adjust the computational budget to the difficulty of the tasks (Anil et al., 2022;Du et al., 2022;2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Anil et al., 2022 source

      Section 2 (p. 3) says longer problem instances require more compute, and Section 5.1 (p. 7) describes scratchpad solutions with a step for each operation. But the paper does not recommend architectures that adaptively adjust computational budgets; its Conclusion (p. 9) emphasizes a length-generalization approach that does not require changing model architecture. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Du et al., 2022;2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Scratchpad/intermediate output tokens improve LLMs' capability for solving harder problems.

    “One approach to achieve this is to explicitly generate intermediate output tokens, similar to writing down a scratchpad, which improves LLMs' capability for solving harder problems (Nye et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nye et al., 2021 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Pause tokens mainly introduce parallel but not sequential compute, which is less powerful than adaptive depth.

    “As discussed in Goyal et al. (2023), pause tokens mainly introduce parallel but not sequential compute, which is less powerful than adaptive depth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goyal et al. (2023) source

      Section I.2 says pause tokens are processed in parallel and do not add sequential computation. The discussion of adaptive compute says some methods increase serial computation, but it does not establish that pause tokens are generally less powerful than adaptive depth; the paper also identifies tasks where parallel computation is advantageous. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    NTP-pause introduces slight improvement in Binary Sum and Unique Set.

    “Similarly, NTP-pause could introduce slight improvement in Binary Sum and Unique Set.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    NTP-Loop and NTP-pause fall behind the looped adaptive-depth method.

    “However, they all fall behind compared with our method.”
    • Also stated in: § 6.2 LENGTH GENERALIZATION RESULTS · hedged
      “Variants of NTP could improve generalization but not as effectively as our adaptive-depth model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The per-sample stopping criterion (B = 1) performs almost as well as using B = N test for converging tasks, but worse for non-converging tasks.

    “The convergence nature of the tasks also affects the performance of the per-sample-based stopping criterion (B = 1) in Figure 6 (Appendix B): the per-sample stopping criterion performs almost as well as when using B = N test to decide for converging tasks, but the performance is worse in non-converging tasks.”
    • Also stated in: § B RESULTS FROM THE ADAPTIVE STOPPING CRITERIA · plain
      “For tasks with converging behaviors (Addition, Copy, Multiplication, Unique Set), per sampler stopping criterion works almost as well as using B = N test , while for tasks without the converging behavior (Parity and Binary Sum), per sampler stopping criterion does not work as well as using B = N test .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The loss curves for Addition, Copy, Multiplication, and Unique Set are smoother than those without convergence behaviors.

    “The loss curves for these tasks are also smoother than those without convergence behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Non-converging tasks are less tolerant when choosing which step to stop.

    “Additionally, non-converging tasks are less tolerant when choosing which step to stop, and we find using the exponential moving average (EMA) of model parameters helpful for Parity and Binary Sum with a factor 0.9999.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Using exponential moving average (EMA) of model parameters is helpful for Parity and Binary Sum with a factor 0.9999.

    “Additionally, non-converging tasks are less tolerant when choosing which step to stop, and we find using the exponential moving average (EMA) of model parameters helpful for Parity and Binary Sum with a factor 0.9999.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Training with pause tokens in FOP can sometimes boost generalization performance compared to vanilla FOP, but not as effectively as the looped adaptive-depth method.

    “Training with pause tokens in FOP could sometimes boost the generalization performance compared to vanilla FOP, but not as effective as our method with looped steps and adaptive depth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    LSTMs can solve regular and counter-language tasks.

    “Their results show that RNNs and Transformers fail to generalize on non-regular tasks, LSTMs can solve regular and counter-language tasks, and only networks augmented with structured memory (such as a stack or memory tape) can successfully generalize on some context-free and context-sensitive tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Delétang et al. (2022)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Generally, it is hard to expect models to be trained on inputs with all possible lengths, and we need to rely on length generalization.

    “Generally, it is hard to expect models to be trained on inputs with all possible lengths, and we need to rely on length generalization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Looped Transformer has external loops embedded in the architecture which naturally provides adaptive depth.

    “On the other hand, architectures such as the Looped Transformer have external loops embedded in the architecture which naturally provides adaptive depth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Only networks augmented with structured memory (such as a stack or memory tape) can successfully generalize on some context-free and context-sensitive tasks.

    “Their results show that RNNs and Transformers fail to generalize on non-regular tasks, LSTMs can solve regular and counter-language tasks, and only networks augmented with structured memory (such as a stack or memory tape) can successfully generalize on some context-free and context-sensitive tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Delétang et al. (2022)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The same decoder block receives supervision from variable lengths and a variable number of steps, so the model is expected to learn length-generalizable intermediate steps that could generalize to more steps at test time.

    “As a result, we expect the model to learn length-generalizable intermediate steps that could potentially generalize to more steps at test time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Transformers usually have a fixed depth.

    “While Transformers can accept a variable length of inputs (that can be processed in parallel), they usually have a fixed depth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These approaches still use fixed-depth models and are far from achieving near-perfect length generalization for simple algorithmic tasks.

    “Notice that these approaches still use fixed-depth models.While these approaches help solve more complex reasoning tasks, they are still far from achieving near-perfect length generalization for simple algorithmic tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The number of steps needed in the loop depends on the problem's complexity, i.e., more difficult problems could potentially require more steps to solve.

    “The number of steps needed in the loop depends on the problem's complexity, i.e., more difficult problems could potentially require more steps to solve.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    If a model can length-generalize, it means the model has truly learned the correct algorithmic solution to the task, not just a spurious solution that works only for certain lengths.

    “Also, if a model can length-generalize, it means the model has truly learned the correct algorithmic solution to the task, not just a spurious solution that works only for certain lengths.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Lee et al. observed that Transformers cannot length generalize even for simple addition tasks.

    “For instance, Lee et al. applied CoT for arithmetic tasks but observed that Transformers cannot length generalize even for simple addition tasks (Lee et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such input representations are highly dependent on the specific problems and might not necessarily exist in general.

    “However, such input representations are highly dependent on the specific problems and might not necessarily exist in general.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Algorithmic tasks that can be written as a RASP-L program can be easily learned by a Transformer in a length-generalizable way with next-token prediction.

    “In Zhou et al. (2024a), they show algorithmic tasks that can be written as a RASP-L program can be easily learned by a Transformer in a length-generalizable way with next-token prediction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhou et al. (2024a)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Fixed depth might be sufficient for certain tasks, but not always.

    “This might be sufficient for certain tasks, but not always.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    RNNs and Transformers fail to generalize on non-regular tasks.

    “Their results show that RNNs and Transformers fail to generalize on non-regular tasks, LSTMs can solve regular and counter-language tasks, and only networks augmented with structured memory (such as a stack or memory tape) can successfully generalize on some context-free and context-sensitive tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Delétang et al. (2022)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    With input injection, the model can maintain a strong connection to the original input, preventing information loss with improved performance.

    “With input injection, the model can maintain a strong connection to the original input, preventing information loss with improved performance (Bai et al., 2019;Yang et al., 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bai et al., 2019 source
    • cites Yang et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Looped Transformer architecture has augmented memory and recurrent structure but is potentially more powerful than prior models because each iteration contains an operation of the whole sequence.

    “In our paper, the Looped Transformer architecture also has augmented memory and the recurrent structure but is potentially more powerful since each iteration contains an operation of the whole sequence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    For algorithmic tasks whose RASP-L program representation is not known to exist, such as addition, parity, and copying the input sequence, it is hard to learn in a length-generalizable way.

    “However, they also showed that for algorithmic tasks whose RASP-L program representation is not known to exist, such as addition, parity, and copying the input sequence, it is hard to learn in a length-generalizable way.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhou et al. (2024a)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    CoT is normally constrained to fixed-depth models, while the paper studies a more general and powerful way to use adaptive compute at inference time.

    “Besides, CoT is normally constrained to fixed-depth models, while we study a more general and powerful way to use adaptive compute at inference time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The length of an input often correlates with the difficulty of the problem instance.

    “The length of an input often correlates with the difficulty of the problem instance.For example, the longer the input, the more difficult the problem tends to be.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For n-RASP-L problems, if the length-independent steps can be learned, an adaptive number of steps can be used to achieve length generalization.

    “For n-RASP-L problems, if we can learn these lengthindependent steps, we can utilize an adaptive number of steps to achieve length generalization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Not all CoT steps are helpful; if CoT steps introduce additional complexity or require operations not easily expressible in RASP-L, then CoT may hinder length generalization.

    “Second, not all CoT steps are helpful.If CoT steps introduce additional complexity or require operations not easily expressible in RASP-L, then CoT may hinder length generalization, as shown in Zhou et al. (2024a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhou et al. (2024a)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    For the first stopping criterion where a(n') is known, inference time is O(ka(n')n'^2), and NTP (with KV cache) and FOP will be O(Cn'^2).

    “For the first stopping criterion where we know a(n ′ ), our inference time would be O(ka(n ′ )n ′2 ), and NTP (with KV cache) and FOP will be O(Cn ′2 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The maximum length of the training set is n, the number of steps needed is T(n), and the number of layers in each step is k.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: NTP and FOP use a fixed number of layers C.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The test length is n'.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The looped Transformers were only trained for a limited number of steps and lengths due to a lack of computing resources.

    “We only train the looped Transformers for a limited number of steps and lengths due to a lack of computing resources.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Our inference time is slightly longer than NTP with KV cache and FOP since we use more steps than the fixed-depth models.

    “In NTP and FOP, we use some C ≈ kT (n) in our experiments such that they use similar compute during training.Our inference time is then slightly longer than NTP with KV cache and FOP since we use more steps than the fixed-depth models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    Step-dependent supervision requires the ground-truth number of steps in the training data, which is an additional requirement compared with normal end-to-end training.

    “Moreover, our step-dependent supervision requires the ground-truth number of steps in the training data, which is an additional requirement compared with normal end-to-end training.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    For the second stopping criterion, inference time is O(kN' n'^2), where N' is the maximum number of steps.

    “For the second criterion, we need to specify the maximum number of steps in order to find the step with maximum confidence.So our inference time would be O(kN ′ n ′2 ), where N ′ is the maximum number of steps.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The maximum length of the training set is n, the number of steps needed is T(n), and the number of layers in each step is k.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: NTP and FOP use a fixed number of layers C.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The test length is n'.
38 of 38
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Intermediate supervision and CoT training data can be difficult to collect.

    “However, such intermediate supervision can be difficult to get, just like collecting helping CoT steps could be difficult.”
    “First, CoT training data could be hard to collect.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    CoT steps that could convert the next token prediction task to RASP-L programs might not always exist.

    “Moreover, CoT steps that could convert the next token prediction task to RASP-L programs might not always exist.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The maximum length of the training set is n, the number of steps needed is T(n), and the number of layers in each step is k.

    “Assume that the maximum length of the training set is n, the number of steps needed is T (n), and the number of layers in each step is k.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    NTP and FOP use a fixed number of layers C.

    “Assume that NTP and FOP are using a fixed number of layers C.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The test length is n'.

    “And we test on length n ′ .”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Multiplication example exceeds the stated output length

    Minor

    The factors have 2 and 3 digits, so the stated output-length rule calls for 5 result digits. The example instead shows 6 result digits.

  • Multiplication example changes the sequence length

    Minor

    The example input has 12 tokens, but its output has 13, contrary to the stated full-output-prediction setup.

  • Binary-addition example has an extra output token

    Minor

    The example input has 9 tokens, while its output has 10. This conflicts with the stated full-output-prediction setup, which keeps input and output the same length.

3 of 3

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Joshua Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Learning iterative reasoning through energy minimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 5570-5582. PMLR, 2022.
  2. Yilun Du, Jiayuan Mao, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Learning iterative reasoning through energy diffusion. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
  3. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  4. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fan, Y., Du, Y., Ramchandran, K., & Lee, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403788968
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2339978, 2023239, CAREER)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › semigroups and automata theory
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
length generalization, iterative computation, arithmetic exercises, algorithmic tasks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review