aiqbench analysis
This study identifies a specific architectural flaw in Linear RNNs where an additive input term acts as a parasitic attractor, causing models to fail at length generalization on complex state-tracking tasks like parity and group permutations. By ablating this term, researchers demonstrated that the architecture can achieve perfect generalization when restricted to orthogonal transitions, revealing that task format is a critical hidden variable in current benchmarks. The findings provide a causal explanation for why optimization alone cannot resolve the gap between fitting training data and solving out-of-distribution problems in hard automata tasks.
The Automaton Underneath: The Additive Input Pathway Is a Parasitic Attractor for State Tracking in Householder Linear RNN
arXiv:2609.18966v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Linear RNNs with input-dependent Householder-product transitions (DeltaNet/DeltaProduct-class) can provably represent hard state-tracking automata, yet trained models fail to length-generalize -- a gap recent work attributes to optimization, without a causal account. We give one, in a pre-registered, within-architecture causal ablation: the same model with one term deleted -- the additive input injection $b_t = W_b e_t$. With $b_t$, models fit length 32 and collapse out-of-distribution on parity, $S_4$, $A_5$, and non-solvable $S_5$ word problems (0.20 at position 512 on $S_5$). Without it -- input acting only through the orthogonal transitions -- the same architecture learns the exact automaton: median accuracy 1.00 at 16x the training length, at every width admitted by a representation law we state and test: the minimal number of Householder factors per token equals the maximal reflection length of the task's generators in the format-pinned representation (parity 1, $S_4$ 3, $A_5$ and $S_5$ 4); below it, nothing fits. The contrast with DeltaProduct's $S_4$/$A_5$ at $n_h{=}2$ (group-element classification, $SO(3)$ realization) shows the law is representation-relative: task format is a hidden variable in state-tracking benchmarks. Two pre-registered arms locate the mechanism. (i) Initialized at a verified-exact solution with $W_b{=}0$, Adam grows the additive path and pulls the model off the exact solution; $-b$ controls stay at 1.00. (ii) Our registered prediction that the fit routes through $b_t$ fired its kill criterion: all 49 fitting seeds retain in-domain fit under $W_b{:=}0$ -- and at law-minimal width, zeroing $W_b$ at inference restores exact generalization (parity 5/5, $S_5$ 5/5, $S_4$ 4/5, $A_5$ 4/5). The additive pathway is parasitic: it destabilizes, then conceals, a correctly learned automaton. All 202 runs pre-registered; all numbers regenerate from artifacts.
Abstract:Linear RNNs with input-dependent Householder-product transitions (DeltaNet/DeltaProduct-class) can provably represent hard state-tracking automata, yet trained models fail to length-generalize -- a gap recent work attributes to optimization, without a causal account. We give one, in a pre-registered, within-architecture causal ablation: the same model with one term deleted -- the additive input injection $b_t = W_b e_t$. With $b_t$, models fit length 32 and collapse out-of-distribution on parity, $S_4$, $A_5$, and non-solvable $S_5$ word problems (0.20 at position 512 on $S_5$). Without it -- input acting only through the orthogonal transitions -- the same architecture learns the exact automaton: median accuracy 1.00 at 16x the training length, at every width admitted by a representation law we state and test: the minimal number of Householder factors per token equals the maximal reflection length of the task's generators in the format-pinned representation (parity 1, $S_4$ 3, $A_5$ and $S_5$ 4); below it, nothing fits. The contrast with DeltaProduct's $S_4$/$A_5$ at $n_h{=}2$ (group-element classification, $SO(3)$ realization) shows the law is representation-relative: task format is a hidden variable in state-tracking benchmarks. Two pre-registered arms locate the mechanism. (i) Initialized at a verified-exact solution with $W_b{=}0$, Adam grows the additive path and pulls the model off the exact solution; $-b$ controls stay at 1.00. (ii) Our registered prediction that the fit routes through $b_t$ fired its kill criterion: all 49 fitting seeds retain in-domain fit under $W_b{:=}0$ -- and at law-minimal width, zeroing $W_b$ at inference restores exact generalization (parity 5/5, $S_5$ 5/5, $S_4$ 4/5, $A_5$ 4/5). The additive pathway is parasitic: it destabilizes, then conceals, a correctly learned automaton. All 202 runs pre-registered; all numbers regenerate from artifacts.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)
arXiv:2609.18966 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.18966v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.18966 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 372 words
Related coverage
Does preservation make sense before we know how to revive?
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
How might continual learning affect safety and alignment?
LessWrong · Jun 13, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026