Explain why transformer hidden states predict future outputs: pre-caching versus breadcrumbs
Determine whether the observed ability of transformer hidden states at time step t to predict tokens at future positions t+τ primarily arises from deliberate pre-caching—where next-token training induces the model to compute features at time t that are irrelevant to predicting x_{t+1} but useful for later tokens, potentially trading off with current-position performance—or instead from the breadcrumbs hypothesis, in which features optimized for predicting x_{t+1} incidentally and efficiently support future predictions without an explicit tradeoff.
References
However, it remains unclear why this might be: is this just a happenstance property of the data, or because the model is deliberately preparing information for future timesteps, at the expense of degrading performance on the current position?
How to determine which historical states should receive gradient feedback, and from which future states, remains an open question.