arXiv AI

Circuit Claims Depend on What Is Extracted and How It Is Compared

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 Machine Learning
Aug 28

Circuit Condensation: Post-Training that Concentrates a Behavior's Causal Circuit

The paper introduces Circuit Condensation, a post‑training method that prunes low‑attribution edges from large causal graphs and trains a low‑rank adapter to preserve behavior. Across four behaviors and eight models, the condensed circuits are on average 8.1× smaller than the strongest frozen baseline, with reductions up to 316×. Experiments show that weight updates drive the size reduction, and detailed ablations reveal dependencies among remaining edges and a more focused set of heads for indirect object identification.

By Sai Adith Senthil Kumar
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 28

Many Circuits, One Mechanism: Input Variation and Evaluation Granularity in Circuit Discovery

The paper investigates whether structural differences in circuits discovered by circuit discovery methods reflect distinct mechanisms. By varying input-token frequency while keeping the task constant, the authors find that although circuits appear specialized by frequency structurally, functional and representational analyses reveal no reliable differences, a phenomenon they call phantom specialization. Across multiple models and tasks, structurally distinct circuits implement the same computation, with core shared subgraphs recovering most of the performance and interchangeable internal representations confirmed by causal interventions.

By Alireza Bayat Makou, Jingcheng Niu, Subhabrata Dutta, Iryna Gurevych
arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

Are We Recovering Mechanisms? Objective-Level Recovery Gaps in Mechanistic Interpretability

The paper investigates mechanistic interpretability, focusing on how automated circuit discovery is evaluated. It shows that the commonly used faithfulness objective can favor circuits that reproduce a model’s behavior poorly, creating an objective-level recovery gap. Experiments on four human-reference tasks and InterpBench reveal that many discovery methods misrank candidate circuits, and that restoring excluded signals can correct most of these misrankings without altering the circuits’ behavior.

By Chuqin Geng, Li Zhang, Haolin Ye, Mark Zhang, Luke Zhang, Xujie Si
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
Sep 10

CircuitLens: Reasoning Circuits as Data Selection Signals for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

The paper introduces Circuit Reasoning Score (CRS), a data‑selection signal for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards that uses attention‑head activity from a frozen base model to gauge reasoning engagement. CRS is computed in a single forward pass without reward labels or rollouts, and it shows that selecting problems with the lowest reasoning‑circuit engagement can outperform random selection on several medium‑difficulty benchmarks. However, the benefit depends on domain, model scale, and reward conditions, indicating that data selection in this setting is regime‑dependent rather than a fixed ranking of problem quality.

By Zhuofan Chen, Ziqian Jiao, Yikai Cui, Zhixin Cai, Jun Bai, Wenge Rong
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31

How Do Linear Probes Emerge? A Circuit-Tracing Framework with Concept-Targeted Attribution

The paper introduces Concept-Targeted Attribution (CTA), a method that trains attribution graphs to explain the emergence of internal concept representations in language models, rather than just the final token prediction. CTA produces probe-specific circuits that reveal which internal computations drive a linear probe’s accuracy, and cross-layer transcoders demonstrate that these graphs contain predictive structure across multiple concept categories. Causal ablations show that probe-targeted and logit-targeted graphs capture distinct mechanisms, with probe-relevant features affecting internal concept scores and logit-relevant features altering generated tokens.

By Vedant Palit, Florent Draye, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Bernhard Sch\"olkopf, Zhijing Jin
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