MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark

How can we know whether new mechanistic interpretability methods achieve real improvements? In pursuit of meaningful and lasting evaluation standards, we propose MIB, a benchmark with two tracks spanning four tasks and five models. MIB favors methods that precisely and concisely recover relevant causal pathways or specific causal variables in neural language models. The circuit localization track compares methods that locate the model components - and connections between them - most important for performing a task (e.g., attribution patching or information flow routes). The causal variable localization track compares methods that featurize a hidden vector, e.g., sparse autoencoders (SAEs) or distributed alignment search (DAS), and locate model features for a causal variable relevant to the task. Using MIB, we find that attribution and mask optimization methods perform best on circuit localization. For causal variable localization, we find that the supervised DAS method performs best, while SAE features are not better than neurons, i.e., standard dimensions of hidden vectors. These findings illustrate that MIB enables meaningful comparisons of methods, and increases our confidence that there has been real progress in the field.

How Generative IR Retrieves Documents Mechanistically

Generative Information Retrieval (GenIR) is a novel paradigm in which a transformer encoder-decoder model predicts document rankings based on a query in an end-to-end fashion. These GenIR models have received significant attention due to their simple retrieval architecture while maintaining high retrieval effectiveness. However, in contrast to established retrieval architectures like cross-encoders or bi-encoders, their internal computations remain largely unknown. Therefore, this work studies the internal retrieval process of GenIR models by applying methods based on mechanistic interpretability, such as patching and vocabulary projections. By replacing the GenIR encoder with one trained on fewer documents, we demonstrate that the decoder is the primary component responsible for successful retrieval. Our patching experiments reveal that not all components in the decoder are crucial for the retrieval process. More specifically, we find that a pass through the decoder can be divided into three stages: (I) the priming stage, which contributes important information for activating subsequent components in later layers; (II) the bridging stage, where cross-attention is primarily active to transfer query information from the encoder to the decoder; and (III) the interaction stage, where predominantly MLPs are active to predict the document identifier. Our findings indicate that interaction between query and document information occurs only in the last stage. We hope our results promote a better understanding of GenIR models and foster future research to overcome the current challenges associated with these models.

MAMUT: A Novel Framework for Modifying Mathematical Formulas for the Generation of Specialized Datasets for Language Model Training

Mathematical formulas are a fundamental and widely used component in various scientific fields, serving as a universal language for expressing complex concepts and relationships. While state-of-the-art transformer models excel in processing and understanding natural language, they encounter challenges with mathematical notation, which involves a complex structure and diverse representations. This study focuses on the development of specialized training datasets to enhance the encoding of mathematical content. We introduce Math Mutator (MAMUT), a framework capable of generating equivalent and falsified versions of a given mathematical formula in LaTeX notation, effectively capturing the mathematical variety in notation of the same concept. Based on MAMUT, we have generated four large mathematical datasets containing diverse notation, which can be used to train language models with enhanced mathematical embeddings.

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".

To Softmax, or not to Softmax: that is the question when applying Active Learning for Transformer Models

Despite achieving state-of-the-art results in nearly all Natural Language Processing applications, fine-tuning Transformer-based language models still requires a significant amount of labeled data to work. A well known technique to reduce the amount of human effort in acquiring a labeled dataset is \textit{Active Learning} (AL): an iterative process in which only the minimal amount of samples is labeled. AL strategies require access to a quantified confidence measure of the model predictions. A common choice is the softmax activation function for the final layer. As the softmax function provides misleading probabilities, this paper compares eight alternatives on seven datasets. Our almost paradoxical finding is that most of the methods are too good at identifying the true most uncertain samples (outliers), and that labeling therefore exclusively outliers results in worse performance. As a heuristic we propose to systematically ignore samples, which results in improvements of various methods compared to the softmax function.