When Models Decide and When They Bind: A Two-Stage Computation for Multiple-Choice Question-Answering

Hugh Mee Wong, Rick Nouwen, Albert Gatt
1/7/2026
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is easy to evaluate but adds a meta-task: models must both solve the problem and output the symbol that *represents* the answer, conflating reasoning errors with symbol-binding failures. We study how language models implement MCQA internally using representational analyses (PCA, linear probes) as well as causal interventions. We find that option-boundary (newline) residual states often contain strong linearly decodable signals related to per-option correctness. Winner-identity probing reveals a two-stage progression: the winning *content position* becomes decodable immediately after the final option is processed, while the *output symbol* is represented closer to the answer emission position. Tests under symbol and content permutations support a two-stage mechanism in which models first select a winner in content space and then bind or route that winner to the appropriate symbol to emit.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{wong2026when,
  title  = {When Models Decide and When They Bind: A Two-Stage Computation for Multiple-Choice Question-Answering},
  author = {Hugh Mee Wong and Rick Nouwen and Albert Gatt},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2601.03914},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03914v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2601.03914.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2601.03914)

Discussion