Void in Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite advances in transformer-based language models (LMs), a fundamental question remains largely unanswered: Are all layers activated during inference? We investigate this question by detecting unactivated layers (which we refer to as Voids) using a non-trainable and parameter-free adaptive computation method called L2 Adaptive Computation (LAC). We adapt LAC from its original efficiency-focused application to trace activated layers during inference. This method monitors changes in the L2-norm of activations to identify voids. We analyze layer activation in instruction-tuned LMs across two phases: Prompt Processing (PP), where we trace activated layers for each token in the input prompts, and Response Generation (RG), where we trace activated layers for each generated token. We further demonstrate that distinct layers are activated during these two phases. To show the effectiveness of our method, we evaluated three distinct instruction-tuned LMs from the Llama, Mistral, and Qwen families on three benchmarks: MMLU, GPQA Diamond, and BoolQ. For example, on MMLU with a zero-shot setting, skipping voids in Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct resulted in an improvement from 69.24 to 71.29 while the model uses only 30% of the layers. Similarly, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 on GPQA Diamond improved from 13.88 to 18.36 when using 70% of the layers during both the PP and RG phases. These results show that not all layers contribute equally during inference, and that selectively skipping most of them can improve the performance of models on certain tasks.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2025.
Builds on
24 of 33 references.
References · 24
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
- 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,183
- 2015Learning both Weights and Connections for Efficient Neural Networkscited by 2,031
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,336
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2016Pruning Filters for Efficient ConvNetscited by 1,143
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
- 2016Adaptive Computation Time for Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 506
- 2017ThiNet: A Filter Level Pruning Method for Deep Neural Network Compressioncited by 442
12 more
- 2024ShortGPT: Layers in Large Language Models are More Redundant Than You Expectcited by 383
- 2023Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probingcited by 334
- 2017SkipNet: Learning Dynamic Routing in Convolutional Networkscited by 332
- 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 244
- 2024The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of the Deeper Layerscited by 226
- 2021PonderNet: Learning to Pondercited by 168
- 2015Conditional Computation in Neural Networks for faster modelscited by 167
- 2017Adaptive Neural Networks for Efficient Inferencecited by 163
- 2024How Large Language Models Encode Context Knowledge? A Layer-Wise Probing Studycited by 64
- 2025The Curse of Depth in Large Language Modelscited by 62
- 2024FinerCut: Finer-grained Interpretable Layer Pruning for Large Language Modelscited by 27
- 2023Adaptive Computation with Elastic Input Sequencecited by 22
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.
- 2025A Survey on Latent Reasoningcited by 81
- 2025A Survey on Latent Reasoning8 Jul 2025