arXiv AI By Yang Sheng, Jie Fu

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

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

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