arXiv AI

Conflict and Congruency Effects in Large Language Models: In-Weight and In-Context Competition in a Verbal Conflict Task

arXiv:2608. 11510v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Congruency effects, observed in conflict tasks such as Stroop and flanker tasks, have been investigated for nearly a century in psychology and neuroscience, but their mechanistic basis is not fully understood.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 5

Pattern Selectivity is Not Task-Causal Structure: A Cross-Architecture Mechanistic Study of Composed-Task Circuits in 1B-Class Language Models

arXiv:2606. 05378v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We test whether a single screen-and-ablate recipe -- identify attention-head circuits by task-pattern selectivity, then verify by causal ablation against a matched-random null -- produces consistent mechanistic claims across model families.

By Yongzhong Xu
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Post-Training Leaves Behavioral Shadows on Unrelated Decisions

The paper demonstrates that language models can acquire new capabilities from post‑training data even when the training text is unrelated to the target task. Using a method called Active Taskless Distillation (ATD), the authors show that a single word from a teacher model can transfer knowledge to a student model without any target‑task examples or teacher logits. Experiments on Qwen2.5-1.5B reveal significant performance gains on HumanEval+ and improvements in scientific knowledge, commonsense reasoning, and reading comprehension across various model families.

By Ziyang Zhang, Yubin Jing, Yuanhao Zeng, Yuyao Li, Haofan Wang, Yichen Gong
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 4

Attention is Case-Sensitive

In human visual perception, uppercase lettering serves as a natural salience cue that captures attention within lowercase text. In this paper, we present a systematic empirical characterization study revealing that Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit an analogous property: letter casing modulates internal attention allocation.

arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

When Do Attention-Head Ablations Support Causal Claims? Projection-Level Confounds, Floor Effects, and Matched Controls

The paper investigates the reliability of attention‑head ablation as a causal inference tool in language models. Using GPT‑2 small, the authors find that a natural post‑projection zeroing method is almost uncorrelated with a corrected pre‑projection ablation and yields a completely different set of top‑5 important heads. They also show that binary accuracy can mask effects near performance floors or ceilings, whereas gold‑token log‑probability provides a graded signal. By employing a discovery/held‑out split and 1,000 matched random‑head and layer‑matched‑head controls, the corrected per‑head effect ranking remains highly stable (Spearman ρ = 0.974) and the top‑5 heads significantly outperform both control distributions (Monte Carlo p = 0.001). However, evidence for task specificity is weak on GPT‑2, and replication on DistilGPT‑2 confirms the intervention‑semantic and matched‑control findings.

By Juli Huang
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4

How Much Do Circuits Tell Us? Measuring the Consistency and Specificity of Language Model Circuits

The study investigates the consistency and specificity of language model circuits across six tasks and five models, focusing on component-level (attention heads and MLP blocks) and neuron-level circuits. Component-level circuits are highly consistent and causally important but lack task specificity, as ablating a circuit for one task similarly harms performance on other tasks. Neuron-level circuits show higher task specificity but lower consistency, with overlap mainly between closely related tasks. The analysis of Llama‑3.2‑3B reveals that shared components are predominantly MLP blocks, while attention heads act as generic attention‑sink heads.

By Michael Li, Nishant Subramani