arXiv:2606. 27510v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Activation patching is the primary tool in mechanistic interpretability.
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 Machine Learning.
arXiv:2607. 08349v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mechanistic interpretability often evaluates explanations by intervening on a model: swapping hidden states, patching activations, ablating components, or comparing a compressed model to the original one.
The paper proposes that two architectural assumptions—(1) attention and MLPs share a key‑value form <phi(S)>U, and (2) components read from an additive residual stream—are sufficient to answer three interpretability questions: component interaction, information routing, and token attribution. By treating these selections as a computational graph, the authors develop Unpack, a backward attribution method that validates interaction scores, recovered routes, and token attribution against established tests across models ranging from 160M to 6.9B parameters. The study also shows that contribution and causal effect can differ, with a recognizable signature in how components change when a task is removed.
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.
arXiv:2606. 10703v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Interpretability methods routinely use population-level summary statistics over observed model behaviour to license claims about the effects of targeted interventions on specific computations; in Pearl's terms, they treat rung-1 associational evidence as if it supported rung-2 interventional conclusions, a move whose validity is rarely tested.
The paper introduces a causal, layerwise audit method called the CoT Mediation Index (CMI) to evaluate whether chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting truly influences a language model’s internal computation. By comparing performance degradation from patching CoT-token hidden states against matched control patches, the authors find that CoT influence is often confined to narrow reasoning windows and can be nearly absent even when the model produces fluent rationales. The study shows that models explicitly tuned for reasoning exhibit stronger mediation, while Mixture-of-Experts models display more distributed mediation, indicating that CoT faithfulness varies across models and tasks.
arXiv:2609.14754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Causal claims about large language model (LLM) internals rest on measurements. Those might include a projection, a cosine, an ablation delta, or an i...