0

Repeated-Token Counting Reveals a Dissociation Between Representations and Outputs

Large language models fail at counting how many times a word repeats in a list, even though they perform well on far harder reasoning tasks. These failures are commonly attributed to limitations in internal count tracking. We show this attribution is wrong.

Preview
Year
2026
Hosting
Full text hostedCC-BY-4.0

Cite

Notes

Only stored in your browser.

Attribution

Abstract & full text
arxiv.org/abs/2605.09239CC-BY-4.0
TL;DR
Semantic Scholar
Attribution policy →

Abstract

Large language models fail at counting how many times a word repeats in a list, even though they perform well on far harder reasoning tasks. These failures are commonly attributed to limitations in internal count tracking. We show this attribution is wrong. Linear probes on the residual stream decode the correct count with near-perfect accuracy at every post-embedding layer and they do so even at the exact layers where the wrong answer crystallizes in the output. Attention patterns show no evidence of collapse over repeated tokens and tokenization artifacts account for none of the failure. Instead, a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) block at roughly 85--93% network depth overwrites the correctly-encoded count with a fixed wrong answer. Ablating this block changes the wrong output and establishes it as causally responsible for the failure. The block fires on the space-separated repeated-word format and is absent for repeated digit-tokens. The pattern holds across Llama-3.2 (1B and 3B) and Qwen2.5 (1.5B, 3B and 7B) at consistent relative depth. The count is represented correctly and a specific computation prevents it from reaching the output, so representation failures and routing failures require different interventions.