跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1030新增论文
+790其中 AI 相关
+128已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-12 02:50 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-11 22:47各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-11 03:36 — 2026-11-12 03:36(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-12 02:50最近发现新增版本:2026-11-11 22:47库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

21,673 已收录论文18,321 AI 相关6,056 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-12 02:48(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.14209

Breakdown of Autoregressive Multi-Step Reasoning Under Concentrated vs. Diffuse Attention Head Dropout

Karol Struniawski

原文摘要

During extended wakefulness, mammalian neocortical networks experience localized periods of transient neuronal silence termed off-states. Here, we examine how analogous spatiotemporally concentrated disruptions affect sequential reasoning in autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs). Evaluating 250 paired derivations on the GSM8K benchmark across two 8B models (Qwen3-8B and LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct), we contrast clustered bursts of attention head masking against budget-matched diffuse i.i.d. dropout. Concentrated bursts induce substantial reasoning degradation: at onset parameter $\mathcal{B}=0.10$ (scheduling $\sim 5.7\%$ of vulnerable head-token volume), Qwen3-8B accuracy drops from $91.2\%$ under diffuse noise to $78.8\%$ under burst dropout ($Δ= -12.4$ percentage points [pp], exact McNemar $p = 5.5 \times 10^{-6}$), while LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct drops from $84.0\%$ to $76.8\%$ ($Δ= -7.2$ pp, $p = 0.0198$). Conversely, dispersing the identical cumulative budget uniformly across generation steps via stratified quintile matching yields substantially milder degradation (retaining $91.2\%$ in Qwen and $84.0\%$ in LLaMA). In an exploratory factorial dissociation ($N=100$), single-step dropout density is associated with an acute drop in a single schedule draw ($-10.0$ pp on Qwen, $p_{\text{holm}} = 0.0425$), while multi-token continuity exhibits an inconclusive compounding trend ($-7.0$ pp, $p_{\text{holm}} = 0.1892$). Error analysis reveals that Qwen failures reflect derivation errors within formatted responses (conditional accuracy drop of $-11.4$ pp), whereas in LLaMA $22.2\%$ of discordant losses lack a final answer format line (conditional gap narrows to $-5.0$ pp). These findings demonstrate that autoregressive reasoning chains are particularly vulnerable to concentrated structural disruptions, providing empirical benchmarks for fault tolerance in transformer architectures.

cs.AI · cs.CL