arXiv preprint ·
Rethinking Circuit Evaluation: Do Circuits Explain Model Errors?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Mechanistic interpretability (MI) aims to explain a model's behaviour through analyzing its internal computations; circuit-based explanations aim to isolate these computations with compact subnetworks validated by ablating the rest of the model. We show that circuits validated this way may fail to recover the underlying mechanism of the model's behaviour by closely reproducing its successful decisions while failing to account for most of its errors. Such explanations should account for the model's particular errors as well as its successes. We evaluate this requirement by measuring exact answer agreement separately on model successes and failures, across circuit sizes and ablation settings, on IOI, Docstring, and six model-task settings from the Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark. We discover that many tested circuits closely replicate correct behaviour while missing most of the model's errors. On indirect object identification (IOI) for GPT-2 small, under mean ablation, the manual circuit and tested automated circuits, including one trained against the model's full output distribution, agree with the model on 97.3-99.5% of prompts it answers correctly but only 11.4-41.7% of errors. An IOI case study shows that lost errors are recoverable by restoring omitted attention-heads which raise error reproduction from 14.2% to 75.1% on a separate held-out set with 0.41 percentage point decrease on correct agreement, exceeding matched random extensions and scalar-biased control. Intervention traces show how omitted computations produce specific wrong answers for a reproducible subset of errors. In all, these findings show circuits can preserve task success without adequately explaining model's failures, and support exact error reproduction as a necessary, but not sufficient, test of circuit-based explanations of model behaviour.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Large Language Models for Structured Clinical Data Analysis: Dual-Agent Grounding and Validation
From Retrieval to Reasoning: Agentic Mechanism Prediction from Cell Painting Profiles
ARCH-B: Architectural Representation, Comprehension and Hierarchy Benchmark
Longer Records, Broader Invariance: The Hidden Scaling Problem in Longitudinal Contrastive Learning
Thinking Outside the Box: Retention and Transmission of Information in Sliding-Window KV Inference
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.