Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The authors evaluate whether circuit-based mechanistic explanations capture true internal computations by measuring exact answer agreement partitioned strictly across model successes and errors on indirect object identification (IOI), Docstring, and the MIB benchmark. Across standard manual and automated circuits on GPT-2 small, subnetworks reproduce 97.3–99.5% of correct predictions but only 11.4–41.7% of errors, though restoring omitted attention heads recovers error agreement up to 75.1%. These findings demonstrate that task-reproducing circuits can systematically mask true underlying computational mechanisms, establishing exact error reproduction as an indispensable requirement for faithful circuit validation.
Standard mechanistic circuits can mimic over 97% of a model's correct outputs while missing up to 89% of its errors, exposing that common ablation validations reward functional mimicry rather than true causal mechanisms.
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.