If you look at convolutional neural nets used in image processing, it's super common for the first layer or so to learn a family of wavelet basis functions. Later layers then do recognition in wavelet space, without that space ever being explained or communicated to the training algorithm.
This work here is obviously more complex than that, but suggests something similar is going on with early layers transforming to some sort of generalized basis functions defining a universal language representation.
it sometimes makes me think of a video at some point of a guy (Daniel Tammet) who had some brain difference,which caused him to be extremely fast at language learning. He said all language carries the same patterns for him, which he sees through synestesia or whatever.
he learnt icelandic in week and had a fluent conversation on their national TV to prove it. (this is nuts, that language is extremely difficult to pickup with nasal sounds etc.)
ofcourse i guess its not even close to average to have such a abilities as a human, but i wonder if at some point LLMs and AI algorithms and models might shed light on such kind of abstractions (like some mentioned in comments also about image recognition algos) that might help humans actually learn these things themselves, train on them and perhaps even get taught such a thing as a skill.
Author here. Another thing I want to highlight: the language-agnostic "thinking space" finding came from Evan Maunder, who read Part 1 and ran an elegant experiment — same sentence in English, Mandarin, and Base64, cosine similarity at every layer. The representations converge by the early layers, stay nearly identical through the mid-stack, then diverge again at the end as the model commits to an output format.
I extended this to a 2×2 design (two languages × two content types) and the result is even starker: by layer 10, cross-language same-content pairs are more similar than same-language different-content pairs. The model cares about what you're saying, not what language you're saying it in.
This is also what makes layer duplication work — those mid-stack layers operate in a space where input and output distributions match, so you can loop through them without breaking anything. The encoding and decoding boundaries are where the blue walls show up in the heatmaps.
Author here. The result that surprised me most: after evaluating 3,024 beam search candidates, training a surrogate model on ~4,600 measurements, and scoring 2 million configurations — the Pareto-optimal configs were all simple contiguous blocks. No exotic multi-block compositions, no sparse repeats. Just "repeat layers 31–33" and you're on the efficiency frontier.
I think this says something interesting about how transformers organise computation internally. The mid-stack reasoning circuits are coherent enough that you can loop through them twice without distribution mismatch. The encoding/decoding boundaries are not.
Apologies if I missed this in the article (or in the first article in the series) - what happens if you add two copies of the layer set? Does performance improve over adding one copy of the layer set?
Author here: That was done in this blog post, in the beam search. I started with the best re-layer configs, and iteratively added more blocks, including the same multiple times, during a long beam search.
It turns out this does not help (somewhat surprisingly).
Actually not surprised.
I guess this is for the same reason “say it twice” [1] is working. Because LLm are trained as causal language model, past token cannot attend to future token.
One copy of the layer set solve this.
[1]https://arxiv.org/html/2512.14982v1
The probes I used seem to help identify good configurations, but are quite noisey. A small probe set was initially used to make the scan tractable, and then the higher ranked models were retested on a set ~10x larger.
If you look at convolutional neural nets used in image processing, it's super common for the first layer or so to learn a family of wavelet basis functions. Later layers then do recognition in wavelet space, without that space ever being explained or communicated to the training algorithm.
This work here is obviously more complex than that, but suggests something similar is going on with early layers transforming to some sort of generalized basis functions defining a universal language representation.
it sometimes makes me think of a video at some point of a guy (Daniel Tammet) who had some brain difference,which caused him to be extremely fast at language learning. He said all language carries the same patterns for him, which he sees through synestesia or whatever.
he learnt icelandic in week and had a fluent conversation on their national TV to prove it. (this is nuts, that language is extremely difficult to pickup with nasal sounds etc.)
ofcourse i guess its not even close to average to have such a abilities as a human, but i wonder if at some point LLMs and AI algorithms and models might shed light on such kind of abstractions (like some mentioned in comments also about image recognition algos) that might help humans actually learn these things themselves, train on them and perhaps even get taught such a thing as a skill.
Author here. Another thing I want to highlight: the language-agnostic "thinking space" finding came from Evan Maunder, who read Part 1 and ran an elegant experiment — same sentence in English, Mandarin, and Base64, cosine similarity at every layer. The representations converge by the early layers, stay nearly identical through the mid-stack, then diverge again at the end as the model commits to an output format.
I extended this to a 2×2 design (two languages × two content types) and the result is even starker: by layer 10, cross-language same-content pairs are more similar than same-language different-content pairs. The model cares about what you're saying, not what language you're saying it in.
This is also what makes layer duplication work — those mid-stack layers operate in a space where input and output distributions match, so you can loop through them without breaking anything. The encoding and decoding boundaries are where the blue walls show up in the heatmaps.
Author here. The result that surprised me most: after evaluating 3,024 beam search candidates, training a surrogate model on ~4,600 measurements, and scoring 2 million configurations — the Pareto-optimal configs were all simple contiguous blocks. No exotic multi-block compositions, no sparse repeats. Just "repeat layers 31–33" and you're on the efficiency frontier.
I think this says something interesting about how transformers organise computation internally. The mid-stack reasoning circuits are coherent enough that you can loop through them twice without distribution mismatch. The encoding/decoding boundaries are not.
Apologies if I missed this in the article (or in the first article in the series) - what happens if you add two copies of the layer set? Does performance improve over adding one copy of the layer set?
Author here: That was done in this blog post, in the beam search. I started with the best re-layer configs, and iteratively added more blocks, including the same multiple times, during a long beam search.
It turns out this does not help (somewhat surprisingly).
Actually not surprised. I guess this is for the same reason “say it twice” [1] is working. Because LLm are trained as causal language model, past token cannot attend to future token. One copy of the layer set solve this. [1]https://arxiv.org/html/2512.14982v1
Has anyone started to implement this technique in Llama.cpp or similar inference tool?
There was some work done on this a while back, during the FrankenMerge craze of 23'
I am working with TurboDerp to integrate this into the Exllama v3 format.
How's the reproducibility of the results? Like avg score of 10 runs vs original.
Author here: The code is up on GitHub.
The probes I used seem to help identify good configurations, but are quite noisey. A small probe set was initially used to make the scan tractable, and then the higher ranked models were retested on a set ~10x larger.
We've discovered the language. It changes the economics of computing.
As in, this entire cloud buildout is unnecessary because it becomes like using a calculator.
Reach out to chat.
Would you be willing to elaborate? I would be curious to hear more.