Dynamics of Spontaneous Topic Changes in Next Token Prediction with Self-Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human cognition is punctuated by abrupt, spontaneous shifts between topics-driven by emotional, contextual, or associative cues-a phenomenon known as spontaneous thought in neuroscience. In contrast, self-attention based models depend on structured patterns over their inputs to predict each next token, lacking spontaneity. Motivated by this distinction, we characterize spontaneous topic changes in self-attention architectures, revealing both their similarities and their divergences from spontaneous human thought. First, we establish theoretical results under a simplified, single-layer self-attention model with suitable conditions by defining the topic as a set of Token Priority Graphs (TPGs). Specifically, we demonstrate that (1) the model maintains the priority order of tokens related to the input topic, (2) a spontaneous topic change can occur only if lower-priority tokens outnumber all higher-priority tokens of the input topic, and (3) unlike human cognition, the longer context length or the more ambiguous input topic reduces the likelihood of spontaneous change. Second, we empirically validate that these dynamics persist in modern, state-of-the-art LLMs, underscoring a fundamental disparity between human cognition and AI behaviour in the context of spontaneous topic changes. To the best of our knowledge, no prior work has explored these questions with a focus as closely aligned to human thought.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".