When Do Attention-Head Ablations Support Causal Claims? Projection-Level Confounds, Floor Effects, and Matched Controls
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The paper investigates the reliability of attention‑head ablation as a causal inference tool in language models. Using GPT‑2 small, the authors find that a natural post‑projection zeroing method is almost uncorrelated with a corrected pre‑projection ablation and yields a completely different set of top‑5 important heads. They also show that binary accuracy can mask effects near performance floors or ceilings, whereas gold‑token log‑probability provides a graded signal. By employing a discovery/held‑out split and 1,000 matched random‑head and layer‑matched‑head controls, the corrected per‑head effect ranking remains highly stable (Spearman ρ = 0.974) and the top‑5 heads significantly outperform both control distributions (Monte Carlo p = 0.001). However, evidence for task specificity is weak on GPT‑2, and replication on DistilGPT‑2 confirms the intervention‑semantic and matched‑control findings.
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.