Disjoint Processing Mechanisms of Hierarchical and Linear Grammars in Large Language Models

All natural languages are structured hierarchically. In humans, this structural restriction is neurologically coded: when two grammars are presented with identical vocabularies, brain areas responsible for language processing are only sensitive to hierarchical grammars. Using large language models (LLMs), we investigate whether such functionally distinct hierarchical processing regions can arise solely from exposure to large-scale language distributions. We generate inputs using English, Italian, Japanese, or nonce words, varying the underlying grammars to conform to either hierarchical or linear/positional rules. Using these grammars, we first observe that language models show distinct behaviors on hierarchical versus linearly structured inputs. Then, we find that the components responsible for processing hierarchical grammars are distinct from those that process linear grammars; we causally verify this in ablation experiments. Finally, we observe that hierarchy-selective components are also active on nonce grammars; this suggests that hierarchy sensitivity is not tied to meaning, nor in-distribution inputs.

Large Language Models Share Representations of Latent Grammatical Concepts Across Typologically Diverse Languages

Human bilinguals often use similar brain regions to process multiple languages, depending on when they learned their second language and their proficiency. In large language models (LLMs), how are multiple languages learned and encoded? In this work, we explore the extent to which LLMs share representations of morphosyntactic concepts such as grammatical number, gender, and tense across languages. We train sparse autoencoders on Llama-3-8B and Aya-23-8B, and demonstrate that abstract grammatical concepts are often encoded in feature directions shared across many languages. We use causal interventions to verify the multilingual nature of these representations; specifically, we show that ablating only multilingual features decreases classifier performance to near-chance across languages. We then use these features to precisely modify model behavior in a machine translation task; this demonstrates both the generality and selectivity of these feature's roles in the network. Our findings suggest that even models trained predominantly on English data can develop robust, cross-lingual abstractions of morphosyntactic concepts.

Findings of the Second BabyLM Challenge: Sample-Efficient Pretraining on Developmentally Plausible Corpora

The BabyLM Challenge is a community effort to close the data-efficiency gap between human and computational language learners. Participants compete to optimize language model training on a fixed language data budget of 100 million words or less. This year, we released improved text corpora, as well as a vision-and-language corpus to facilitate research into cognitively plausible vision language models. Submissions were compared on evaluation tasks targeting grammatical ability, (visual) question answering, pragmatic abilities, and grounding, among other abilities. Participants could submit to a 10M-word text-only track, a 100M-word text-only track, and/or a 100M-word and image multimodal track. From 31 submissions employing diverse methods, a hybrid causal-masked language model architecture outperformed other approaches. No submissions outperformed the baselines in the multimodal track. In follow-up analyses, we found a strong relationship between training FLOPs and average performance across tasks, and that the best-performing submissions proposed changes to the training data, training objective, and model architecture. This year's BabyLM Challenge shows that there is still significant room for innovation in this setting, in particular for image-text modeling, but community-driven research can yield actionable insights about effective strategies for small-scale language modeling.

Incremental Sentence Processing Mechanisms in Autoregressive Transformer Language Models

Autoregressive transformer language models (LMs) possess strong syntactic abilities, often successfully handling phenomena from agreement to NPI licensing. However, the features they use to incrementally process language inputs are not well understood. In this paper, we fill this gap by studying the mechanisms underlying garden path sentence processing in LMs. We ask: (1) Do LMs use syntactic features or shallow heuristics to perform incremental sentence processing? (2) Do LMs represent only one potential interpretation, or multiple? and (3) Do LMs reanalyze or repair their initial incorrect representations? To address these questions, we use sparse autoencoders to identify interpretable features that determine which continuation - and thus which reading - of a garden path sentence the LM prefers. We find that while many important features relate to syntactic structure, some reflect syntactically irrelevant heuristics. Moreover, while most active features correspond to one reading of the sentence, some features correspond to the other, suggesting that LMs assign weight to both possibilities simultaneously. Finally, LMs do not re-use features from garden path sentence processing to answer follow-up questions.

Characterizing the Role of Similarity in the Property Inferences of Language Models

Property inheritance -- a phenomenon where novel properties are projected from higher level categories (e.g., birds) to lower level ones (e.g., sparrows) -- provides a unique window into how humans organize and deploy conceptual knowledge. It is debated whether this ability arises due to explicitly stored taxonomic knowledge vs. simple computations of similarity between mental representations. How are these mechanistic hypotheses manifested in contemporary language models? In this work, we investigate how LMs perform property inheritance with behavioral and causal representational analysis experiments. We find that taxonomy and categorical similarities are not mutually exclusive in LMs' property inheritance behavior. That is, LMs are more likely to project novel properties from one category to the other when they are taxonomically related and at the same time, highly similar. Our findings provide insight into the conceptual structure of language models and may suggest new psycholinguistic experiments for human subjects.

Arithmetic Without Algorithms: Language Models Solve Math With a Bag of Heuristics

Do large language models (LLMs) solve reasoning tasks by learning robust generalizable algorithms, or do they memorize training data? To investigate this question, we use arithmetic reasoning as a representative task. Using causal analysis, we identify a subset of the model (a circuit) that explains most of the model's behavior for basic arithmetic logic and examine its functionality. By zooming in on the level of individual circuit neurons, we discover a sparse set of important neurons that implement simple heuristics. Each heuristic identifies a numerical input pattern and outputs corresponding answers. We hypothesize that the combination of these heuristic neurons is the mechanism used to produce correct arithmetic answers. To test this, we categorize each neuron into several heuristic types-such as neurons that activate when an operand falls within a certain range-and find that the unordered combination of these heuristic types is the mechanism that explains most of the model's accuracy on arithmetic prompts. Finally, we demonstrate that this mechanism appears as the main source of arithmetic accuracy early in training. Overall, our experimental results across several LLMs show that LLMs perform arithmetic using neither robust algorithms nor memorization; rather, they rely on a "bag of heuristics".

The Quest for the Right Mediator: A History, Survey, and Theoretical Grounding of Causal Interpretability

Interpretability provides a toolset for understanding how and why neural networks behave in certain ways. However, there is little unity in the field: most studies employ ad-hoc evaluations and do not share theoretical foundations, making it difficult to measure progress and compare the pros and cons of different techniques. Furthermore, while mechanistic understanding is frequently discussed, the basic causal units underlying these mechanisms are often not explicitly defined. In this paper, we propose a perspective on interpretability research grounded in causal mediation analysis. Specifically, we describe the history and current state of interpretability taxonomized according to the types of causal units (mediators) employed, as well as methods used to search over mediators. We discuss the pros and cons of each mediator, providing insights as to when particular kinds of mediators and search methods are most appropriate depending on the goals of a given study. We argue that this framing yields a more cohesive narrative of the field, as well as actionable insights for future work. Specifically, we recommend a focus on discovering new mediators with better trade-offs between human-interpretability and compute-efficiency, and which can uncover more sophisticated abstractions from neural networks than the primarily linear mediators employed in current work. We also argue for more standardized evaluations that enable principled comparisons across mediator types, such that we can better understand when particular causal units are better suited to particular use cases.

NNsight and NDIF: Democratizing Access to Foundation Model Internals

The enormous scale of state-of-the-art foundation models has limited their accessibility to scientists, because customized experiments at large model sizes require costly hardware and complex engineering that is impractical for most researchers. To alleviate these problems, we introduce NNsight, an open-source Python package with a simple, flexible API that can express interventions on any PyTorch model by building computation graphs. We also introduce NDIF, a collaborative research platform providing researchers access to foundation-scale LLMs via the NNsight API. Code, documentation, and tutorials are available at https://www.nnsight.net.

Missed Causes and Ambiguous Effects: Counterfactuals Pose Challenges for Interpreting Neural Networks

Interpretability research takes counterfactual theories of causality for granted. Most causal methods rely on counterfactual interventions to inputs or the activations of particular model components, followed by observations of the change in models' output logits or behaviors. While this yields more faithful evidence than correlational methods, counterfactuals nonetheless have key problems that bias our findings in specific and predictable ways. Specifically, (i) counterfactual theories do not effectively capture multiple independently sufficient causes of the same effect, which leads us to miss certain causes entirely; and (ii) counterfactual dependencies in neural networks are generally not transitive, which complicates methods for extracting and interpreting causal graphs from neural networks. We discuss the implications of these challenges for interpretability researchers and propose concrete suggestions for future work.

[Call for Papers] The 2nd BabyLM Challenge: Sample-efficient pretraining on a developmentally plausible corpus

After last year's successful BabyLM Challenge, the competition will be hosted again in 2024/2025. The overarching goals of the challenge remain the same; however, some of the competition rules will be different. The big changes for this year's competition are as follows: First, we replace the loose track with a paper track, which allows (for example) non-model-based submissions, novel cognitively-inspired benchmarks, or analysis techniques. Second, we are relaxing the rules around pretraining data, and will now allow participants to construct their own datasets provided they stay within the 100M-word or 10M-word budget. Third, we introduce a multimodal vision-and-language track, and will release a corpus of 50% text-only and 50% image-text multimodal data as a starting point for LM model training. The purpose of this CfP is to provide rules for this year's challenge, explain these rule changes and their rationale in greater detail, give a timeline of this year's competition, and provide answers to frequently asked questions from last year's challenge.