arXiv:2607. 01940v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Mechanistic interpretability often relies on component-level interventions to discover how a model produces a behavior.
arXiv:2607. 18921v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Circuit extraction identifies a small set of model components whose presence preserves a target behavior under ablation, and the resulting circuit is often read as the mechanism behind that behavior.
arXiv:2608. 14689v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Residual connections are a fundamental component of transformer architectures, yet the roles of the attention and feed-forward residual pathways remain poorly understood when considered independently.
arXiv:2606. 27510v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Activation patching is the primary tool in mechanistic interpretability.
arXiv:2607. 27281v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A capability appears in a language model when the last parts of its circuit align in one stochastic attempt, and getting all but one right is worth nothing.
arXiv:2605. 23393v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Mechanistic interpretability of transformers requires identifying not just which components matter but how they compose into the computational route that produced a prediction.
arXiv:2608. 15286v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce AgentRelBench, an environment-agnostic reliability instrument that computes ground-truth, severity-priced damage from database state diffs across repeated runs, with no LLM in the measurement path, demonstrated on EnterpriseOps-Gym.
Grokking -- where a transformer on modular arithmetic suddenly transitions from near-chance to near-perfect validation accuracy -- is attributed to a Fourier circuit, but its timing, causal structure, and controllability remain poorly understood. We introduce the Frequency Synchronization Degree (FSD), a normalised, permutation-tested metric for Fourier circuit synchronisation requiring no prior circuit knowledge.
arXiv:2608. 03620v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Activation patching and weight-space ablation both claim a component is causally responsible for a behavior, yet they act on different objects: one forward pass versus the parameters behind every forward pass.
arXiv:2608. 04408v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: On-policy distillation (OPD) supervises student-visited trajectories, yet divergence-based rules cannot determine whether an erroneous prefix remains correctable.
arXiv:2606. 31511v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In deployment settings where retraining is infeasible, small frozen code models are routinely asked to repair a failed program after seeing their own failing output, usually treated as a retry mechanism.
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.
arXiv:2608. 03842v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When a language model fails on surface-perturbed input (typos, OCR noise, homophones), "which layer is responsible" has three natural operationalizations: where representations diverge most (sensitivity), where restoring clean activations recovers the prediction (causality), and where a small adapter can repair the damage (compensatory capacity) - and we show these three layer maps dissociate.