mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Unveiling the Mechanisms of Multi-Hop Reasoning in Transformers via Identity Bridge

arXiv 2509.24653 ↗First posted 29 Sep 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 4

On the map: LLM reasoning → Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at multi-hop reasoning in distribution, yet fail on unseen compositions, a phenomenon known as the curse of two-hop reasoning. In this work, we argue that this phenomenon can be attributed to a missing supervision on the bridge entity. We formalize this gap by introducing identity bridge, a minimal supervision that enforces a identity mapping on bridge tokens. Under this supervision, even a one-layer transformer with uniform attention (Emb-MLP) can achieve out-of-distribution (OOD) two-hop generalization. We provide a theoretical analysis demonstrating that identity bridge induces an implicit regularization effect, leading the model to establish a direct subject-to-answer association. From an empirical perspective, the performance of standard GPT-2 models aligns closely with simple Emb--MLP models across varying levels of problem complexity. Finally, analyses of fine-tuned mainstream LLMs indicate that correct two-hop predictions consistently coincide with the establishment of a subject-to-answer relationship, extending our findings to realistic settings.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 13 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2025.

Builds on

13 of 34 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Lessons from Studying Two-Hop Latent Reasoning25 Nov
  2. 2024Do Large Language Models Latently Perform Multi-Hop Reasoning?26 Feb

Other references · 11

  1. 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,075
  2. 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 340
  3. 2019Gradient Descent Maximizes the Margin of Homogeneous Neural Networkscited by 320
  4. 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 214
  5. 2024Break the Chain: Large Language Models Can be Shortcut Reasonerscited by 32
  6. 2024Interpreting Key Mechanisms of Factual Recall in Transformer-Based Language Modelscited by 31
  7. 2025Complexity Control Facilitates Reasoning-Based Compositional Generalization in Transformerscited by 20
  8. 2023Understanding Finetuning for Factual Knowledge Extraction from Language Modelscited by 13
  9. 2025An Analysis for Reasoning Bias of Language Models with Small Initializationcited by 13
  10. 2025Generalization or Hallucination? Understanding Out-of-Context Reasoning in Transformerscited by 10
  11. 2023An Investigation of LLMs' Inefficacy in Understanding Converse Relationscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Bridge Routing Heads: Where Multilingual Multi-hop Reasoning Lives in LLMs
  2. 2026Layer-Order Inversion: Rethinking Latent Multi-Hop Reasoning in Large Language Models
  3. 2025Examining Two Hop Reasoning Through Information Content Scaling
  4. 2024Distributional reasoning in LLMs: Parallel reasoning processes in multi-hop reasoning
  5. 2026DiscoLoop: Looping Discrete Embeddings and Continuous Hidden States for Multi-hop Reasoning
  6. 2023Memory Injections: Correcting Multi-Hop Reasoning Failures during Inference in Transformer-Based Language Models
  7. 2025How do Transformers Learn Implicit Reasoning?
  8. 2024Large Language Models Still Face Challenges in Multi-Hop Reasoning with External Knowledge