mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

The Discrete Charm of the MLP: Binary Routing of Continuous Signals in Transformer Feed-Forward Layers

arXiv 2603.10985 ↗First posted 11 Mar 2026cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We show that MLP layers in transformer language models perform binary routing of continuous signals: the decision of whether a token needs nonlinear processing is well-captured by binary neuron activations, even though the signals being routed are continuous. In GPT-2 Small (124M parameters), we find that specific neurons implement a consensus architecture -- seven "default-ON" neurons and one exception handler (N2123 in Layer 11) that are 93-98% mutually exclusive -- creating a binary routing switch. A cross-layer analysis reveals a developmental arc: early layers (L1-3) use single gateway neurons to route exceptions without consensus quorums; middle layers (L4-6) show diffuse processing with neither gateway nor consensus; and late layers (L7-11) crystallize full consensus/exception architectures with increasing quorum size (1 to 3 to 7 consensus neurons). Causal validation confirms the routing is functional: removing the MLP at consensus breakdown costs 43.3% perplexity, while at full consensus removing it costs only 10.1% -- exceeding a 4x difference. Comparing binary vs. continuous features for the routing decision confirms that binarization loses essentially no information (79.2% vs. 78.8% accuracy), while continuous activations carry additional magnitude information (R^2 = 0.36 vs. 0.22). This binary routing structure explains why smooth polynomial approximation fails: cross-validated polynomial fits (degrees 2-7) never exceed R^2 = 0.06 for highly nonlinear layers. We propose that the well-established piecewise-affine characterization of deep networks can be complemented by a routing characterization: along the natural data manifold, the piecewise boundaries implement binary decisions about which tokens need nonlinear processing, routing continuous signals through qualitatively different computational paths.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Mar 2026.

Builds on

14 of 26 references.

References · 14

  1. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,047
  2. 2018The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis: Finding Sparse, Trainable Neural Networkscited by 2,257
  3. 2020GLU Variants Improve Transformercited by 1,759
  4. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,391
  5. 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,323
  6. 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 950
  7. 2022LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scalecited by 896
  8. 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 831
  9. 2021Knowledge Neurons in Pretrained Transformerscited by 597
  10. 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 544
  11. 2016Adaptive Computation Time for Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 491
  12. 2024ShortGPT: Layers in Large Language Models are More Redundant Than You Expectcited by 375
2 more
  1. 2019Depth-Adaptive Transformercited by 230
  2. 2023The Truth is in There: Improving Reasoning in Language Models with Layer-Selective Rank Reductioncited by 122

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.