Goldstein 2025 Fig 3 — Paper vs Our GPT-2 XL vs Ouro-2.6B

The same figure from three sources, stacked for direct comparison. Fig 3 = the depth→time hierarchy: each ROI's encoding-peak lag plotted against model depth. In language ROIs (TP, IFG, aSTG) the peak lag drifts later as model depth increases (positive r); the auditory control (mSTG) should stay flat. Our GPT-2 and Ouro panels use the gold-standard papermatch presentation — a clean single-row scatter with a bold dashed regression line and a big bold r per panel (same data, cleaner than the raw fuzzy scatter). Click any figure for full size.

1 · Paper — Goldstein et al. 2025

The published result we replicate (GPT-2 XL, 48 layers). Full Fig 3 extracted from the paper PDF (p.5): brain inset + top curves row + bottom peak-lag-vs-layer scatter.

Paper Fig 3 — full figure (both rows, PDF-extracted)
Paper r: TP +0.93 · IFG +0.85 · aSTG +0.92 (all p≤10e-13) · mSTG −0.24 (p=.09, ns). Language ROIs march rightward (later lag) from red→blue; the mSTG auditory control stays pinned near lag 0 — no hierarchy. Extracted from analysis/assets/paper_fig3_full.png (cropped from paper/goldstein-2025-temporal-structure.pdf, page 5).

2 · Our GPT-2 XL replication — gold standard (papermatch)

Our pipeline (PCA-50 + OLS, predictive word-alignment, sub-bin parabolic peak, posterior-STG control), rendered in the clean single-row Fig-3 format. Re-run from scratch and verified bit-exact vs the frozen oracle (max abs diff = 0.0). Regenerated from best_run via analysis/fig_papermatch.py.

Gold standard — papermatch (clean regression-line Fig 3)
Our GPT-2 XL replication — gold standard (papermatch). TP +0.89 · IFG +0.83 · aSTG +0.81 · mSTG −0.26 (ns). Bold dashed line = regression; same data as best_run, clean single-row Fig-3 format.

3 · Ouro-2.6B looped transformer (same papermatch format)

The novel extension. Ouro reuses the SAME weights across 4 recurrent passes; its "depth" is unrolled iteration: effective depth = pass×48 + layer (0→191). Same electrodes/estimator as the GPT-2 replication, same papermatch presentation. Regenerated from best_run via analysis/fig_papermatch_ouro.py.

Ouro-2.6B — Goldstein Fig 3 (papermatch, peak lag vs effective recurrent depth)
Ouro-2.6B, same papermatch format. IFG +0.66 · aSTG +0.60 (sig) · TP +0.25 (ns, n=6 underpowered) · mSTG-proxy +0.84. x-axis = effective recurrent depth (0–191); faint lines = pass boundaries. NOTE: the real EAC auditory control shows this is not language-specific — see poster v2.