ASSC 2026 · Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness

The Global Key-Value Workspace

A unifying consciousness theory for reasoning in LLMs

We build an explicit global workspace inside a pretrained Large Language Model, by augmenting the Transformer. It improves reasoning and increases the synergy between its components.

Zafeirios Fountas1, Frederico Wieser1, Martin Benfeghoul1,2, Adnan Oomerjee1,2, Jun Wang1
1Huawei Noah's Ark Lab, London  ·  2AI Centre, Department of Computer Science, UCL

Get the preprint & code

Leave your email and we will send the preprint, full results, and the codebase the moment they are out.

No spam, one email when it ships.

The idea

A testbed for consciousness theories

Theories of consciousness are hard to test in brains. An LLM with an explicit workspace gives us a system we can build a theory into and intervene on directly.

01

Consciousness theories are normally tested in brains, where clean intervention is hard.

02

An LLM with an explicit workspace lets us build a theory's commitments in and manipulate them directly.

03

We use it as a testbed for Global Workspace Theory, IIT, and how they relate.

Architecture

Global Workspace Theory, made mechanistic

A capacity-limited spotlight selects salient components, writes them sparsely to a shared workspace, and broadcasts the result back to all components, iterated across layers. Unlike prior workspace networks trained from scratch, ours runs on a pretrained model's KV cache, and we measure the integration it produces.

1. SelectionKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVBACKBONE LLMKVBACKBONE LLMKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVKVShared WorkspaceKVKVKVKVKVKV. . .KV2. Sparse Write to Workspace3. Broadcast to All ComponentsKV

Results · reasoning

The workspace improves math and logic reasoning

Across four backbones, broadcasting selected information improves multi-step reasoning. The workspace does functional work, the access claim made concrete.

MethodGSM8KSVAMPGSM-HdLogiQAGaokaoAVG
Llama-3.2 1B
SFT33.0042.008.0028.9023.9027.16
BT35.3043.708.2028.6025.6028.28
+GW35.6046.707.7029.5025.4028.98
Llama-3.2 3B
SFT53.9864.6714.3330.2631.0538.86
BT57.0971.3314.6330.2630.2040.70
+GW58.3069.6715.8531.4930.4841.16
Llama-3.1 8B
SFT13.1223.333.1127.1928.2118.99
BT20.8539.334.9327.0426.5023.73
+GW21.7640.005.3826.5725.0723.76
Qwen3-0.6B
SFT53.7068.3020.3027.5026.8039.32
BT54.8068.7021.2027.2026.5039.68
+GW55.0070.0021.1027.5027.1039.94

SFT supervised fine-tuning · BT Bottlenecked Transformer · +GW global workspace (dense broadcast). Average over the five tasks; best per column shaded.

Results · efficiency

Better, and cheaper

48.0%
avg accuracy · BGT (TF 46.8%)
2.574
validation NLL · BGT (TF 2.603)
56.6
exaFLOPs · BGT (TF 58.5)

Averaged over the standard LM benchmarks · 355–356M params · 20B tokens · matched across TF / BT / BGT.

Results · performance vs cost

A narrow spotlight, at a fraction of the cost

2026-06-30T13:38:53.672738 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.10.0, https://matplotlib.org/ 10% 25% 50% 75% 100% Spotlight Size 27.4 27.6 27.8 28.0 28.2 28.4 Average performance Mean Std. err. Relative complexity 0 20 40 60 80 100 Relative complexity

We observe. Accuracy rises with width and is highest at full broadcast. A narrow spotlight recovers most of the accuracy at far lower compute.

Results · integration

The workspace shifts components toward synergy

Synergy is the information in the whole minus the sum of its parts, over balanced head partitions. More positive means higher synergy, and our model (BGT) tends toward it.

SFT baseline · BT · BGT   95% CI · less separable →. Still redundancy-dominated, so a relative shift.

Results · performance vs integration

Integration rises to a peak, then falls

2026-06-30T14:00:40.374845 image/svg+xml Matplotlib v3.11.0, https://matplotlib.org/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Iterative steps 0 10 20 30 GSM8K accuracy (%) GSM8K accuracy Raw synergy Synergy 95% CI −2 0 2 Raw synergy (nats/token)

We observe. Synergy and performance have a complex relationship. Accuracy peaks within a few steps, then collapses if the processor keeps iterating, even as raw synergy carries on climbing.

Discussion

Why the workspace helps

Re-coupling

Specialised modules approximate a factorised, mean-field posterior that drops the dependencies between them. Synergy is the part no subset captures. The workspace re-couples a few to recover it and escape the local optima that factorised inference gets stuck in, at an energy cost.

free energy highlow mean-field: one module at a time local optimum higher free energy couple modules + energy global optimum lower free energy module A → module B →

Compression

Trained on the model's own loss, the workspace keeps what the latent tells us about the output while discarding input detail (data processing inequality). Compress the input, keep the output, the condition for generalisation.

input X I(X;Z) ↓ compress work- space I(Z;Y) kept keep output Y

Compression and synergy are orthogonal: how much of the input survives, versus how it is organised across modules. The workspace does both. We see synergy rise where broadcast helps; we have not yet shown it is the cause.

Open questions

Help us design the experiment

  • Are Global Workspace Theory and IIT actually rival accounts, or two views of one mechanism?
  • Why is the workspace capacity-limited, and when should a bottleneck help beyond efficiency (distractors, interference, task-switching)?
  • Does the workspace ignite, all-or-none, as GNWT predicts?
  • What is the principled halting rule?
  • Is the mean-field and bottleneck account of why the workspace helps correct, trivial, or new?

We have the testbed. Tell us what experiment would convince you.

Stay in the loop

Get the preprint and code

Leave your email and we will send the preprint, the full results, and the codebase the moment they are out.

No spam, one email when it ships.