Ablate a component of a language model, and other components often appear to adjust and compensate. This phenomenon, termed self-repair, has been observed repeatedly, but its mechanism remains unclear. The most systematic study to date concluded that self-repair is noisy and unlikely to have a single explanation. We argue that it has one: a gain already present before any ablation. Any intervention on a causally important component can be viewed as a point on a coordinate axis $\lambda$, the signed strength of a counterfactual contrast. Hence, conventional ablation methods are uncalibrated points on this axis. We show that the causal repair response for a fine-grained unit $r$ is governed by an affine law, $E_r(\lambda)=\mathrm{own}_r+\gamma_r\lambda$. The slope $\gamma_r$ is a fixed coefficient that consistently influences the model, with or without ablation, and its sign determines whether the unit counteracts or reinforces the removed signal. On a factual-verdict task across four models from distinct families (Gemma, Qwen, LLaMA, and Mistral), we identify components including MLP neurons, OV neurons, and singular directions that follow this affine law, 68 of 81 downstream directions in all. Moreover, we can anticipate the magnitude of $\gamma_r$ from the fixed weights. On the IOI circuit of GPT-2 Small, seven of the ten heads the intervention can reach follow the law, and all seven are counterweights. From this perspective, what may appear as self-repair is a counterweight performing its usual operation when the contrastive signal emerges at the core.
Attention-head ablation, zeroing a head and measuring the resulting change in task performance, is a common method for inferring which components of a language model are causally responsible for a behavior. We show using GPT-2 small that this inference can be fragile unless the intervention semantics, evaluation metric...
When a steering intervention changes a language model's behavior, which part of the intervention deserves the credit? We test this question for a target-centered, scaled conceptor complement by removing its fitted covariance filter while preserving the same target-specific center and gain. At the original aperture $\al...
This work provides the first mechanistic base-vs-instruct comparison of conflict-resolution circuits, and believes that because the conflict circuit is preserved rather than rebuilt, interpretability and control tools calibrated on base models should transfer directly to their deployed instruct siblings.
S. Pandere, Gautam Ranka, Ritika Varshney et al.· 0 citations
The mechanism is a halt vector: a difference-of-means direction at layer 18 of this model whose steering strength controls how long it thinks, while a replicated value axis does nothing, and what works is reconstructing the whole steered activation with those dimensions pinned to their natural values.
An environment-grounded audit is introduced in which every intermediate proposal receives an exact outcome in an evolutionary Contexto search whose feedback function assigns every valid guess an exact rank without human annotation.
En-Rong Pan, Ryan Zhou, Ting Hu· Inquiry@Queen's Undergraduat...· 0 citations
AI reviewers can now produce many specific criticisms, but more criticism is not necessarily a better review. A review may miss a consequential weakness or retain an allegation that available evidence does not support. These failures require opposite corrections, yet generation-oriented systems and aggregate measures o...
Ze-Xing Zhang, Ji-Chao Li, Tian-Yang Lei et al.· 0 citations
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.