Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the sources of variability in circuit discovery methods for large language models (LLMs), particularly focusing on the limitations of the state-of-the-art EAP-IG approach. The authors introduce CEAP, a new circuit discovery method that significantly reduces resampling variance and provides theoretical guarantees, while also revealing that rephrasing variance is inherent due to the diverse activation of circuits by different prompt templates. The findings suggest that the complexity of LLM behavior makes it challenging to identify a single, comprehensive circuit for task control, and that sparsity does not mitigate these issues as previously thought.
Circuit discovery in LLMs is fraught with variability, and a new method reveals that this complexity may be an inherent challenge rather than a flaw in existing techniques.
Circuit discovery is a key technique in mechanistic interpretability to pinpoint the model components that are crucial for performing a given task. Although the current state-of-the-art method (EAP-IG) performs well on the metric of (un)faithfulness, it suffers from substantial variability. This includes resampling variance, where the circuit changes when we probe with a new batch of data from the same distribution; rephrasing variance, where the discovered circuit shifts when the prompts are rephrased; and sample-wise variance, where a circuit with low population unfaithfulness exhibits large fluctuations in unfaithfulness across individual samples. This paper studies the roots of these variances. We demonstrate that CEAP, our new circuit discovery method that improves upon EAP-IG with a theoretical guarantee, can substantially lessen resampling variance. We further show that rephrasing variance arises because prompts with different templates tend to activate different circuits in the model. This leads us to argue that it may be challenging to find a comprehensive circuit that explains and controls the model's behavior on a task, which can be expressed in countless templates, suggesting that LLMs may be inherently hard to steer. We show that sparsity, which has been claimed to form more compact and interpretable task circuits, fails to solve this problem. Regarding sample-wise variance, we argue that it is largely benign: extremely poor unfaithfulness scores often stem from how unfaithfulness is defined, rather than from defects in the measured circuits. We show that the magnitude of unfaithfulness is affected by selective contribution scaling, a neural mechanism that accounts for the extremely poor scores sometimes observed.
