Cross posted from https://www.talkingtoclaude.com/
Abstract
This paper presents a critical examination of current approaches to mechanistic interpretability in Large Language Models (LLMs). I argue that prevalent research methodologies, particularly ablation studies and component isolation are fundamentally misaligned with the nature of the systems they seek to understand.
I suggest a shift toward observational approaches that study neural networks in their natural, functioning state rather than through destructive testingwould be more constructive.
I suggest a shift toward observational approaches that study neural networks in their natural, functioning state rather than through destructive testingwould be more constructive.
Aka I am totally anti LLM lobotomy!
Introduction
The field of mechanistic interpretability has emerged as a crucial area of AI research, promising to unlock the "black box" of neural network function. However, current methodological approaches may be hindering rather than advancing our understanding. This paper critically examines current practices and proposes alternative frameworks for investigation.
Recent research into mechanistic interpretability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has focused heavily on component isolation and ablation studies. A prime example is the September 2024 investigation of "successor heads" by Ameisen and Batson, which identified specific attention heads apparently responsible for ordinal sequence prediction. Their study employed multiple analytical methods including weight inspection, Independent Components Analysis (ICA), ablation studies, and attribution analysis.
The results revealed intriguing patterns: while the top three successor heads (layers 10, 11, 13) showed consistent identification across component scores and OV projection, layers 3 and 5 demonstrated high ablation effects despite low component scores. More notably, attribution analysis showed surprising disagreement with other methods, hinting at deeper methodological issues in current interpretability approaches.
These discrepancies point to fundamental questions about our approach to understanding LLMs. When researchers found that earlier layers (3 and 5) showed significant ablation effects without corresponding component scores, they hypothesized mechanisms like "Q/K composition with later successor heads" or "influence on later-layer MLPs." However, such explanations may reflect our tendency to impose human-interpretable narratives on statistical patterns we don't fully understand.
The field's current focus on destructive testing through ablation studies assumes a separability of neural components that may not reflect reality. Neural networks likely operate in highly coupled, non-linear regimes where removing components creates artificial states rather than revealing natural mechanisms. The divergence between different analytical methods suggests we may be measuring artifacts of network damage rather than understanding genuine functional mechanisms.
This misalignment between methodology and reality mirrors broader challenges in AI research, where complex mathematical frameworks and elaborate theoretical constructs may serve more to maintain academic authority than to advance genuine understanding. The field's tendency to anthropomorphize LLM behaviors and search for hidden capabilities reflects our human psychological need to make the unfamiliar familiar, even at the cost of accurate understanding.
Recent research into mechanistic interpretability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has focused heavily on component isolation and ablation studies. A prime example is the September 2024 investigation of "successor heads" by Ameisen and Batson, which identified specific attention heads apparently responsible for ordinal sequence prediction. Their study employed multiple analytical methods including weight inspection, Independent Components Analysis (ICA), ablation studies, and attribution analysis.
The results revealed intriguing patterns: while the top three successor heads (layers 10, 11, 13) showed consistent identification across component scores and OV projection, layers 3 and 5 demonstrated high ablation effects despite low component scores. More notably, attribution analysis showed surprising disagreement with other methods, hinting at deeper methodological issues in current interpretability approaches.
These discrepancies point to fundamental questions about our approach to understanding LLMs. When researchers found that earlier layers (3 and 5) showed significant ablation effects without corresponding component scores, they hypothesized mechanisms like "Q/K composition with later successor heads" or "influence on later-layer MLPs." However, such explanations may reflect our tendency to impose human-interpretable narratives on statistical patterns we don't fully understand.
The field's current focus on destructive testing through ablation studies assumes a separability of neural components that may not reflect reality. Neural networks likely operate in highly coupled, non-linear regimes where removing components creates artificial states rather than revealing natural mechanisms. The divergence between different analytical methods suggests we may be measuring artifacts of network damage rather than understanding genuine functional mechanisms.
This misalignment between methodology and reality mirrors broader challenges in AI research, where complex mathematical frameworks and elaborate theoretical constructs may serve more to maintain academic authority than to advance genuine understanding. The field's tendency to anthropomorphize LLM behaviors and search for hidden capabilities reflects our human psychological need to make the unfamiliar familiar, even at the cost of accurate understanding.
Current Methodological Limitations
The Ablation Fallacy
Current interpretability research heavily relies on ablation studies - the systematic "disabling" of network components to understand their function. This approach suffers from several fundamental flaws:
It assumes circuit locality and separability that may not exist in highly interconnected neural networks
Networks likely operate in highly coupled, non-linear regimes where "removing" components creates artificial effects
Observed impacts may reflect network damage rather than natural mechanisms
Researchers risk confusing entropy increase with mechanism discovery
..please visit my Substack for more in this vein..
https://www.talkingtoclaude.com/p/rethinking-mechanistic-interpretability
