mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Frontier Language Models Struggle to Copy: Text Can Be Better Viewed in 2D

arXiv 2607.16072 ↗First posted 17 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

While large language models (LLMs) can solve advanced reasoning problems in seconds, we show that even frontier models fail to perform a much simpler operation: exactly copying an input string that lies well within their context windows. We attribute this failure to positional encodings in Transformer architectures, whose inductive bias favors copying through a shortcut based on matching local contexts rather than carefully locating the corresponding input positions. To address this issue, we introduce 2D-RoPE, which organizes text into a 2D grid rather than a 1D sequence and assigns each token a row ID and a column ID. Under this view, copying becomes simply retrieving input tokens at a fixed column offset, which makes the task easy to learn. In synthetic copy experiments, shallow Transformers with 2D-RoPE achieve perfect copying at input lengths hundreds of times longer than those seen during training, whereas standard positional encodings fall far behind. We further show that the advantage of 2D-RoPE language models on copy tasks consistently holds in large-scale pretraining on DCLM with model sizes up to 1.4B parameters. Overall, our results suggest that viewing text in 2D can benefit language modeling, and we hope this encourages future work to further explore the potential of 2D positional encodings.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 19 of its 73 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.

Builds on

19 of 73 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Qwen3 Technical Report14 May

Other references · 18

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  3. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
  4. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
  5. 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,883
  6. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,183
  7. 2024RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?cited by 1,346
  8. 2016The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse contextcited by 992
  9. 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 964
  10. 2019WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at Scalecited by 204
  11. 2025Competitive Programming with Large Reasoning Modelscited by 119
  12. 2024Transformers Can Achieve Length Generalization But Not Robustlycited by 86
6 more
  1. 2023Length Generalization in Arithmetic Transformerscited by 66
  2. 2024Theoretical limitations of multi-layer Transformercited by 45
  3. 2025Long-Context Generalization with Sparse Attentioncited by 21
  4. 2025SWAN-GPT: An Efficient and Scalable Approach for Long-Context Language Modelingcited by 19
  5. 2023Improving Length-Generalization in Transformers via Task Hintingcited by 13
  6. 2025RePo: Language Models with Context Re-Positioningcited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Repeat After Me: Transformers are Better than State Space Models at Copying
  2. 2024Exploring the Limitations of Mamba in COPY and CoT Reasoning
  3. 2026To Copy or Not to Copy: Controlling Speculative Decoding via Intrinsic Model Signals
  4. 2024Language Models "Grok" to Copy
  5. 2024PositionID: LLMs can Control Lengths, Copy and Paste with Explicit Positional Awareness
  6. 2026Copy-as-Decode: Grammar-Constrained Parallel Prefill for LLM Editing
  7. 2026Protoreasoning in Tiny Transformers
  8. 2026Distilling Sequential Computation in Transformer Language Models