Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Padding Tone: A Mechanistic Analysis of Padding Tokens in T2I Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Padding tokens in text-to-image models are not inert: they can encode semantics during text encoding or act as registers during diffusion.

desk verdict Useful mechanistic study of padding tokens in T2I, but the FLUX register claim rests on an IDP design that may not control for the frozen CLIP pooled embedding. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06751 v2 pith:MBZ7FGNJ submitted 2025-01-12 cs.CL cs.CV

Michael Toker , Ido Galil , Hadas Orgad , Rinon Gal , Yoad Tewel , Gal Chechik , Yonatan Belinkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.CV
keywords paddingtokenstext-to-imagediffusionactivationpatchingcausalmediationanalysismultimodaltransformerregisterstextencodertrainingCLIPscore
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the padding tokens that stretch text prompts to a fixed length in text-to-image (T2I) models are inert filler or active participants in generation. It introduces two causal intervention techniques, one aimed at the text encoder and one at the diffusion process, and applies them to six T2I models. The result is a three-way taxonomy: padding tokens can carry semantic information when the text encoder is trained or fine-tuned, they can act as information-carrying registers during diffusion in multi-modal self-attention architectures, or they can be effectively ignored when a frozen CLIP encoder feeds cross-attention. The paper concludes that padding is thus a design choice with real consequences, not a batch-processing convenience.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the encoded token representations: 'prompt-contextual pads' are padding tokens encoded together with the user's prompt, while 'clean pads' come from encoding an all-padding sequence and serve as a neutral, distribution-matched baseline. The first technique, ITE (intervention in the text encoder), swaps prompt or padding segments in the text encoder's output before image generation; the second, IDP (intervention in the diffusion process), repeats the same swap before every attention block at every diffusion step. This is causal mediation via activation patching: a segment is load-bearing exactly when replacing it with clean pads measurably changes the generated image. The machinery also includes attention-map inspection, which shows whether padding tokens receive attention from image regions.

What would settle it

Run a controlled ablation on one architecture where text-encoder freezing and attention type are varied independently while backbone, data, and prompt set stay fixed; if padding tokens show no causal effect in the trained-encoder condition, or show register behavior in a frozen-encoder cross-attention condition, the paper's two-axis explanation is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that padding tokens in T2I pipelines occupy one of three roles depending on how the text encoder was trained and how the diffusion model attends to text. With a text encoder trained or fine-tuned on the image-generation objective, as in LDM and LLaMA-UNet, the pads absorb semantic content: images generated from only the prompt-contextual padding tokens score nearly as well as images from the full prompt, and the information is concentrated in the pads closest to the prompt. With a frozen text encoder feeding a multi-modal diffusion transformer, as in SD3 and FLUX, padding tokens are initially empty but accumulate information during the diffusion process and act as 'registers' that store and pass visual details to image patches. With a frozen CLIP encoder feeding cross-attention, as in SD2 and SDXL, padding tokens are effectively ignored, and replacing them with clean pads does not change the output. The paper's evidence comes from two activation-patching procedures that swap segments of token representations between the full prompt encoding and an all-pad encoding, then measure the resulting images with CLIP score and a distribution-distance metric.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing premise is that its six off-the-shelf models differ in the ways that matter, text-encoder freezing and attention architecture, and not in other ways such as scale, training data, distillation, or checkpoint version.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Models with trained text encoders should be expected to change output when padding tokens are removed or replaced, so padding should be treated as part of the prompt representation in those systems.
  • In MM-DiT models such as SD3 and FLUX, dropping padding tokens should reduce visual detail and coherence, since pads act as registers that store information during diffusion.
  • In frozen-CLIP cross-attention models such as SD2 and SDXL, padding tokens can be safely ignored or masked, with little effect on the generated image.
  • Pad position matters: the first padding tokens carry more information than later ones, so pad order is a design parameter rather than an arbitrary convention.
  • Fine-tuning strength, as reflected in the LoRA scaling factor, controls how many padding tokens a model actually uses, making padding usage a continuous knob during adaptation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to insert extra learnable tokens after the prompt in MM-DiT models with frozen encoders and check whether they improve fidelity the way padding registers appear to.
  • If trained encoders genuinely store prompt semantics in pads, token-level editing and personalization methods may need to intervene on padding tokens rather than only on prompt tokens.
  • The finding that information concentrates in early pads suggests variable-length or pad-count-reduced training could change model behavior, and is worth studying as a deliberate design choice.
  • The LoRA-scaling result implies that pad usage is tied to how strongly a model is adapted, which could serve as a diagnostic for how much of a fine-tuned model's behavior lives outside its prompt tokens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies padding tokens in text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models, proposing two activation-patching interventions: ITE, which swaps token segments in the text encoder output, and IDP, which swaps token representations before each diffusion attention block. Across six models and 5,000 images per condition, it reports three regimes: padding tokens are effectively ignored in frozen-CLIP cross-attention models (SD2, SDXL); they become semantically meaningful when the text encoder is trained or fine-tuned (LDM, LLaMA-UNet); and they act as diffusion-stage 'registers' in MM-DiT models (SD3, FLUX). The central claim is that padding tokens are active computational elements rather than a neutral batch-processing convenience.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a useful mechanistic contribution with practical implications for interpreting, editing, and designing T2I models. The work has real strengths: a large intervention study across six models, 5,000 images per configuration, standard causal-patching methodology, a combination of quantitative metrics (CLIP score, KID) with attention-map and qualitative evidence, and publicly released code. The proposed three-way taxonomy of padding behavior is a valuable organizing framework. However, the mapping from behavior to architecture/training is observational across heterogeneous checkpoints, and the IDP method has a plausible internal-validity confound involving FLUX's pooled CLIP text embedding that must be resolved before the diffusion-level 'register' claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, Table 3] The IDP experiment does not appear to control for FLUX's pooled CLIP text embedding. Appendix C states that FLUX uses a frozen CLIP encoder in addition to T5, and in current FLUX implementations the CLIP encoder also outputs a global pooled text vector used as a conditioning signal. The paper describes replacing token representations before each attention block at every diffusion step, but it never states whether this pooled vector is replaced, masked, or held constant in the 'Pads' versus 'Clean' conditions. If the full-prompt pooled vector is still fed to the transformer in the 'Pads' condition, then the higher prompt-CLIP score for 'Pads' (0.22) relative to 'Clean' (0.10) in Table 3 can be explained without any information being written into padding tokens. This is an internal-validity problem for the causal interpretation of IDP, not merely a cross-model attribution issue, and the same concern should be addressed for SD3, which also combines frozen CLIP and T5 encoders.
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 5, Table 1] The paper attributes padding behavior to 'frozen versus trained' text encoders and 'cross-attention versus MM-DiT' architectures by comparing six pre-existing models, but these factors covary with model family, parameter scale, training data, distillation status (FLUX-Schnell is a distilled checkpoint), and release version. This is not a controlled comparison. For example, LDM and SD2 differ not only in whether the text encoder is trained but also in the text encoder architecture, the diffusion backbone, and the training dataset. The claims in Contributions 2 and 3 should therefore be rephrased as correlational observations among the studied checkpoints, or supported by at least one controlled ablation that varies a single factor, such as fine-tuning a frozen CLIP encoder on a T2I objective or removing MM-DiT self-attention.
  3. [§2.1, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The clean-pad representation Eclean is used as the counterfactual baseline for both ITE and IDP, but the manuscript does not validate that Eclean is distributionally matched to the padding positions of Efull. In Efull, the padding tokens are encoded in the context of the prompt tokens; in Eclean, all positions are padding tokens. Replacing prompt-contextual pads with clean pads may therefore introduce a distribution shift rather than a pure removal of prompt-related information. The authors should provide a sanity check for this assumption, for example by showing that Eclean and the padding positions of Efull are close in representation space in the frozen-encoder models, or by including a second neutral baseline. This is load-bearing because the causal interpretation of both intervention methods depends on Eclean being an appropriate control.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 5] Figure 5 presents only point estimates, while the standard deviations are relegated to Table 5 in the appendix; the main figure should display error bars or confidence intervals because the text makes claims such as 'nearly identical' and 'significantly lower' that depend on the spread of the distributions.
  2. [Introduction vs. Appendix C] The Introduction refers to 'FLUX 2' in the list of MM-DiT models, while Appendix C states that the experiments use FLUX-Schnell; please clarify which model release is actually analyzed.
  3. [§2.3] In the paragraph on LDM and Lavi-Bridge, the sentence 'images generated from full prompt tokens have lower scores compared to those generated using prompt representations' appears to conflate 'full prompt' and 'prompt representations'; please rephrase this comparison to match the definitions in Equations (2) and (3).
  4. [Table 3] The table defines 'Pads First' and 'Pads Second' only as 'First 20%' and 'Second 20%', but the text and Figure 9 do not specify whether these are 20% of the padding segment by position, and how this segmentation aligns with the ITE segment analysis in Table 2.
  5. [Limitations] The Limitations section should explicitly acknowledge that the architecture and training attributions are based on a small observational sample of six checkpoints with no controlled factor isolation, so that the causal framing in the abstract and conclusion is not over-read by readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims rest on direct causal interventions with external metrics, not on fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and causal-interventional rather than definitional. Section 2.1 operationally defines clean pads by encoding an all-pad sequence, then tests whether replacing prompt-contextual pad positions with clean pads changes generated images (Eqs. 2-3; Figure 5; Table 1). The conclusions about trained versus frozen text encoders are not fitted parameters recycled as predictions; they are direct comparisons of intervention outputs on external CLIP and KID metrics. Section 3.1-3.2 (IDP) similarly intervenes before each attention block at every diffusion step and compares against a clean-pad baseline; the 'registers' interpretation is supported by attention maps and ablations, not by any equation that defines pad usage in terms of the conclusion. The only self-citations (Toker et al. 2024; Vig and Belinkov 2019) appear in Related Work and are not load-bearing; the register analogy cites external work (Darcet et al. 2024; Burtsev et al. 2020). The paper's acknowledged limitations (prompt coverage, metric sensitivity) and the possible confound that FLUX conditions on a pooled CLIP text vector not patched by IDP are internal-validity concerns rather than circularity: no prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, a fitted value, or a self-cited uniqueness claim. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities. The analysis depends on four methodological assumptions: clean-pad neutrality, validity of activation patching, adequacy of CLIP/KID as evaluation metrics, and representativeness of the six-model comparison for drawing architecture and training conclusions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Replacing target token representations with clean pad representations yields a valid causal estimate of that token group's contribution.
    Used in ITE and IDP, Sections 2.1 and 3.1. Requires that clean pads are neutral and that patched representations remain in a meaningful regime.
  • domain assumption Eclean, the encoding of an all-pad prompt, contains no prompt-related information and is distributionally matched to normal pad encodings.
    Section 2.1 uses Eclean as the baseline for constructing Eprompt and Epads. If all-pad inputs are out-of-distribution for the text encoder, the baseline is flawed.
  • domain assumption CLIP score and KID are adequate proxies for semantic fidelity and distributional closeness of generated images.
    Section 2.2 uses these metrics. CLIP score may share representation space with CLIP text encoders in some models, and KID with 5,000 samples still has sampling noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The six models are representative enough to attribute pad usage to frozen-vs-trained encoders and cross-vs-MM-DiT attention.
    Sections 2.3 and 3.2 draw architectural and training conclusions from an uncontrolled comparison of six existing models; model family differences are confounded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Padding Tone: A Mechanistic Analysis of Padding Tokens in T2I Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBZ7FGNJ

@misc{pith2026250106751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Padding Tone: A Mechanistic Analysis of Padding Tokens in T2I Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBZ7FGNJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06751}
}
read the original abstract

Text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models rely on encoded prompts to guide the image generation process. Typically, these prompts are extended to a fixed length by adding padding tokens before text encoding. Despite being a default practice, the influence of padding tokens on the image generation process has not been investigated. In this work, we conduct the first in-depth analysis of the role padding tokens play in T2I models. We develop two causal techniques to analyze how information is encoded in the representation of tokens across different components of the T2I pipeline. Using these techniques, we investigate when and how padding tokens impact the image generation process. Our findings reveal three distinct scenarios: padding tokens may affect the model's output during text encoding, during the diffusion process, or be effectively ignored. Moreover, we identify key relationships between these scenarios and the model's architecture (cross or self-attention) and its training process (frozen or trained text encoder). These insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of padding tokens, potentially informing future model design and training practices in T2I systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06751 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images generated with FLUX from different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The scenarios we observe: padding tokens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ITE: Interpreting information within pad tokens in the text encoder. We first encode the full prompt and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Images generated from different segments of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average CLIP score over 5,000 images generated from the different representations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Images generated from Lavi-bridge with LoRa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Attention histogram for Stable Diffusion XL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Attention maps for FLUX diffusion show strong alignment between prompt tokens and seman￾tically relevant image tokens. These maps also reveal high attention for padding tokens with the main objects in the image. blocks can potentially aggregate information into the pad…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: IDP: Interpreting information within pad tokens in the diffusion model. We perform a diffusion of two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Images generated with FLUX us￾ing IDP from different prompt segments show distinct alignments: prompt tokens produce semantically accu￾rate images, while the visual nuance like ’cozy’ emerges only from the prompt-contextual pad tokens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Additional examples of images generated from different segments of the input prompt using IDP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples of images generated from the same prompts with maximum padding* and without padding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andrea Banino, Jan Balaguer, and Charles Blundell. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1EuxRTe0WN Pondernet: Learning to ponder . In 8th ICML Workshop on Automated Machine Learning (AutoML)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Samyadeep Basu, Nanxuan Zhao, Vlad I Morariu, Soheil Feizi, and Varun Manjunatha. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Qmw9ne6SOQ Localizing and editing knowledge in text-to-image generative models . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Miko aj Bi \'n kowski, Danica J Sutherland, Michael Arbel, and Arthur Gretton. 2018. Demystifying mmd gans. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Mikhail S Burtsev, Yuri Kuratov, Anton Peganov, and Grigory V Sapunov. 2020. Memory transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.11527

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Hila Chefer, Yuval Alaluf, Yael Vinker, Lior Wolf, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2023. Attend-and-excite: Attention-based semantic guidance for text-to-image diffusion models. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4):1--10

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Hila Chefer, Oran Lang, Mor Geva, Volodymyr Polosukhin, Assaf Shocher, Inbar Mosseri, Lior Wolf, et al. 2024. The hidden language of diffusion models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Kevin Clark, Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, and Christopher D. Manning. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4828 What does BERT look at? an analysis of BERT ' s attention . In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 276--286, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4828 2019

  8. [8]

    Timoth \'e e Darcet, Maxime Oquab, Julien Mairal, and Piotr Bojanowski. 2024. Vision transformers need registers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Yuxuan Ding, Chunna Tian, Haoxuan Ding, and Lingqiao Liu. 2024. The clip model is secretly an image-to-prompt converter. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  2. [10]

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas M \"u ller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. 2024. Scaling rectified flow transformers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference o...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patashnik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2022. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to-image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Yossi Gandelsman, Alexei A Efros, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. Interpreting CLIP 's image representation via text-based decomposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05916

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gabriel Goh, Nick Cammarata, Chelsea Voss, Shan Carter, Michael Petrov, Ludwig Schubert, Alec Radford, and Chris Olah. 2021. Multimodal neurons in artificial neural networks. Distill, 6(3):e30

    2021

  6. [14]

    Sachin Goyal, Ziwei Ji, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Sanjiv Kumar, and Vaishnavh Nagarajan. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ph04CRkPdC Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Rep...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Alex Graves. 2016. Adaptive computation time for recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08983

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen - Or. 2023. https://openreview.net/pdf?id=\_CDixzkzeyb Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023, K...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.595 CLIPS core: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/8a1d694707eb0fefe65871369074926d-Paper.pdf Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibr...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Kosuke Imai, Luke Keele, and Dustin Tingley. 2010. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological methods, 15(4):309

    2010

  12. [20]

    Olga Kovaleva, Alexey Romanov, Anna Rogers, and Anna Rumshisky. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1445 Revealing the dark secrets of BERT . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference ...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Jacob Pfau, William Merrill, and Samuel R Bowman. 2024. Let's think dot by dot: Hidden computation in transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15758

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M \" u ller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=di52zR8xgf SDXL: improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis . In The Twelfth Internationa...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learni...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Royi Rassin, Eran Hirsch, Daniel Glickman, Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, and Gal Chechik. 2023. Linguistic binding in diffusion models: Enhancing attribute correspondence through attention map alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08877

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Anna Rogers, Olga Kovaleva, and Anna Rumshisky. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00349 A primer in BERT ology: What we know about how BERT works . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:842--866

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj \" o rn Ommer. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01042 High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models . In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2022...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Raphael Tang, Linqing Liu, Akshat Pandey, Zhiying Jiang, Gefei Yang, Karun Kumar, Pontus Stenetorp, Jimmy Lin, and Ferhan Ture. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.310 What the DAAM : Interpreting stable diffusion using cross attention . In Proceedings of the 61st ...

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Michael Toker, Hadas Orgad, Mor Ventura, Dana Arad, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.524 Diffusion lens: Interpreting text encoders in text-to-image pipelines . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational ...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Jesse Vig and Yonatan Belinkov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-4808 Analyzing the structure of attention in a transformer language model . In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 63--76, Florence, It...

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Simas Sakenis, Jason Huang, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. 2020. Causal mediation analysis for interpreting neural nlp: The case of gender bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12265

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2024. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Jiahui Yu, Yuanzhong Xu, Jing Yu Koh, Thang Luong, Gunjan Baid, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Alexander Ku, Yinfei Yang, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Ben Hutchinson, Wei Han, Zarana Parekh, Xin Li, Han Zhang, Jason Baldridge, and Yonghui Wu. 2022. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusI...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Eric Zelikman, Georges Raif Harik, Yijia Shao, Varuna Jayasiri, Nick Haber, and Noah Goodman. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=oRXPiSOGH9 Quiet- ST ar: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking . In First Conference on Language Modeling

    2024

  26. [34]

    Fred Zhang and Neel Nanda. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Hf17y6u9BC Towards best practices of activation patching in language models: Metrics and methods . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  27. [35]

    Shihao Zhao, Shaozhe Hao, Bojia Zi, Huaizhe Xu, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. 2024. Bridging different language models and generative vision models for text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07860

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  29. [37]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.