Attention Diversion explains why inference-time strategies, including chain-of-thought prompting, spell-checking, self-repair, and stronger repair models, fail to consistently recover performance: each addresses one channel at a time.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance, but their robustness to realistic lexical corruption remains poorly understood. We evaluate four open-weight instruction-tuned models and frontier models across four reasoning benchmarks under keyboard noise, character swaps, and filler insertion. Character-level perturbations substantially degrade accuracy, especially on multi-step reasoning tasks, while filler insertion has little effect. We trace this asymmetry to Attention Diversion: lexical corruption fragments subword tokenization, and the resulting fragments attract disproportionate attention mass, concentrated in middle and final transformer layers. Length-matched controls confirm that fragmentation, not prompt length, drives the loss. A factorial intervention then shows why the damage is hard to undo: fragmentation corrupts token content and attention allocation together, and the two are coupled. Restoring clean attention while the content remains corrupted is actively harmful, restoring content alone is insufficient, and only restoring both recovers a substantial share of the gap. This coupling explains why inference-time strategies, including chain-of-thought prompting, spell-checking, self-repair, and stronger repair models, fail to consistently recover performance: each addresses one channel at a time. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Jiaqian-Janelle/Attention-Diversion
A token-level analysis of this failure mode is presented by viewing decoding as a dynamical process that enters and persists in a small set of recurrent contexts and shows that persistence is controlled by the escape mass assigned to plausible alternatives within the token sampling set.
Junyoung Lee, Se-Hee Park, Shinhyoung Jang et al.· 0 citations
It is concluded that mean attention degradation is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive: function tokens contribute through what their hidden states compute, not through the attention they receive -- with implications for interpretability methodology and attention-score-based inference optimisations such as KV-cache eviction.
This work finds that models cannot reliably reconstruct the original meaning and layer-wise probe classifiers fail to detect the harmful intent of perturbed prompts, and perturbations can occasionally reduce attack success by inducing off-topic or incoherent responses.
These results support depthwise convolution as a lightweight complement to self-attention for modeling short-range token interactions and suggest that the convolution makes repeated token IDs more sensitive to their immediate context.
Yuchuan Tian, Yingte Shu, Wei He et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are known to be sensitive to prompt and input formulations. However, existing studies have focused on lexical realization and largely ignored constructional choice. This paper studies whether linguistic construction can systematically shift LLM decisions and where these shifts can be causally localized inside the model. We use political stance judgment as a meaning-sensitive case study and extend an English political statements dataset, resulting in six controlled linguistic rewrite types that preserve or invert the meaning of a statement. Experiments on four open-weight models show that stance instability affect both meaning-preserving and meaning-inversing rewrites. Because output shifts reveal that rewrites affect stance, but not where in the model, we apply activation patching, where activations from the original statement are substituted into the forward pass for the rewritten statement and measure which components recover the original stance distribution. The results show that mid-to-late decoder layers, especially block outputs at the final prompt position, provide the strongest restoration signal.
Langchen Huang, Sebastian Padó, Franziska Weeber· 0 citations
When a large language model fails a reasoning task, it is often assumed to lack the underlying capability. However, this conflates a genuine absence of reasoning with a late-stage output bottleneck. We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks: hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses due to structural biases. To test whether instance-specific logic survives this collapse, we introduce a diagnostic protocol using a minimal, target-label-free additive correction. Fitting just two parameters on as few as 25 unlabeled examples recovers 9--34 accuracy points for Qwen3.5 models, transferring successfully to OLMo-2-1B and Llama-3.1-8B. Crucially, these recovered decisions persist on hard instances unresolved by simple lexical overlap and significantly exceed count-preserving permutation baselines. Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic, urging a narrower interpretation of benchmark evaluations.