arXiv Machine Learning

Finding the Heads and the Neurons Responsible for Network Information Retrieval in Language Models

The study investigates whether particular attention heads and individual neurons within those heads in language models are responsible for detecting network infrastructure information—specifically hostnames paired with IP addresses. Using causal ablation and selective testing across five models from three architecture families, the authors find that a small subset of heads reliably identifies such information with near-perfect accuracy. However, the extent to which this responsibility is concentrated in a single neuron varies by model; in some cases a single neuron suffices, while in others the signal is distributed across the head. The findings generalize to an independent reverse‑DNS dataset, though single‑neuron detectors are less robust.

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
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 Machine Learning
Sep 11

Detectable Only Where It Is Confounded: What Verified Duplication Counts Say About Membership Evidence in Language Models

The paper investigates whether language models can identify sentences from their training data by using exact duplication counts from publicly released corpora for two model families, OLMo‑2 and Pythia. It finds that for typical duplication levels, models show only a weak trace of exposure, with a rank correlation near –0.08, and that strong signals only appear when a sentence appears roughly a thousand times, at which point fame rather than memory dominates. The study also demonstrates that common membership tests can be misleading, as changing a single word does not alter the model’s preference, and that controlling for register can significantly improve detector performance.

By Arman Nik Khah
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25

What a Cross-Model Fixed-Point Census Can and Cannot Arbitrate About Repetition

The paper investigates neural text degeneration by measuring the fixed‑point structure of short‑window argmax maps across 17 pretrained models, using 96 random two‑token starts without prompts. It finds a stable four‑way classification that varies across model families and scales, with some models funneling to a single endpoint token while others do not, and shows that this behavior is not solely determined by training data or corpus frequency. The study demonstrates that repetition phenomena are not uniformly explained by either training data or network architecture alone, highlighting the complexity of neural text generation dynamics.

By Nicol\'as Vera Z\'u\~niga
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Decodability is Not Causality: Dissociating Probe Readouts from Behavioral Drivers via SAE Decomposition

Linear probes can decode safety‑relevant concepts such as truthfulness from language‑model activations, but probe accuracy may reflect only decodability, not causal influence on model behavior. The authors show that probe weight geometry alone cannot identify the features the model actually uses, because geometrically aligned features need not be causally relevant. They introduce a sparse‑autoencoder (SAE) decomposition that ranks features by probe alignment and gradient sensitivity, and demonstrate that ablating shared, probe‑only, and random feature sets reveals a sharp dissociation: shared features drive model output changes far more than probe‑only or random features, confirming that causal relevance requires intervention beyond weight geometry.

By Devesh Tiwari, Camille Davis, Shivank Sinha, Talia Weaver, Aditya Shah, Maheep Chaudhary