Relational reasoning and inductive bias in transformers trained on a transitive inference task
Authors:
Jesse Geerts,
Stephanie Chan,
Claudia Clopath,
Kimberly Stachenfeld
Abstract:
Transformer-based models have demonstrated remarkable reasoning abilities, but the mechanisms underlying relational reasoning in different learning regimes remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate how transformers perform a classic relational reasoning task from the Psychology literature, \textit{transitive inference}, which requires inference about indirectly related items by integr…
▽ More
Transformer-based models have demonstrated remarkable reasoning abilities, but the mechanisms underlying relational reasoning in different learning regimes remain poorly understood. In this work, we investigate how transformers perform a classic relational reasoning task from the Psychology literature, \textit{transitive inference}, which requires inference about indirectly related items by integrating information across observed adjacent item pairs (e.g., if A>B and B>C, then A>C). We compare transitive inference behavior across two distinct learning regimes: in-weights learning (IWL), where models store information in network parameters, and in-context learning (ICL), where models flexibly utilize information presented within the input sequence. Our findings reveal that IWL naturally induces a generalization bias towards transitive inference, despite being trained only on adjacent items, whereas ICL models trained solely on adjacent items do not generalize transitively. Mechanistic analysis shows that ICL models develop induction circuits that implement a simple match-and-copy strategy that performs well at relating adjacent pairs, but does not encoding hierarchical relationships among indirectly related items. Interestingly, when pre-trained on in-context linear regression tasks, transformers successfully exhibit in-context generalizable transitive inference. Moreover, like IWL, they display both \textit{symbolic distance} and \textit{terminal item effects} characteristic of human and animal performance, without forming induction circuits. These results suggest that pre-training on tasks with underlying structure promotes the development of representations that can scaffold in-context relational reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 4 June, 2025;
originally announced June 2025.
Probabilistic Successor Representations with Kalman Temporal Differences
Authors:
Jesse P. Geerts,
Kimberly L. Stachenfeld,
Neil Burgess
Abstract:
The effectiveness of Reinforcement Learning (RL) depends on an animal's ability to assign credit for rewards to the appropriate preceding stimuli. One aspect of understanding the neural underpinnings of this process involves understanding what sorts of stimulus representations support generalisation. The Successor Representation (SR), which enforces generalisation over states that predict similar…
▽ More
The effectiveness of Reinforcement Learning (RL) depends on an animal's ability to assign credit for rewards to the appropriate preceding stimuli. One aspect of understanding the neural underpinnings of this process involves understanding what sorts of stimulus representations support generalisation. The Successor Representation (SR), which enforces generalisation over states that predict similar outcomes, has become an increasingly popular model in this space of inquiries. Another dimension of credit assignment involves understanding how animals handle uncertainty about learned associations, using probabilistic methods such as Kalman Temporal Differences (KTD). Combining these approaches, we propose using KTD to estimate a distribution over the SR. KTD-SR captures uncertainty about the estimated SR as well as covariances between different long-term predictions. We show that because of this, KTD-SR exhibits partial transition revaluation as humans do in this experiment without additional replay, unlike the standard TD-SR algorithm. We conclude by discussing future applications of the KTD-SR as a model of the interaction between predictive and probabilistic animal reasoning.
△ Less
Submitted 6 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
