arXiv subjects

Philipp Mondorf

Publications and source records attributed to Philipp Mondorf.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

ConceptARC at Scale: Studying Conceptual Understanding in Reasoning Models

Large reasoning models (LRMs) perform well on challenging benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether they form generalizable abstractions across conceptually related reasoning tasks. The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) provides a controlled testbed for studying abstraction, requiring solvers to infer transformation rules over two-dimensional grids from a small set of examples. While ARC evaluates rule abstraction within individual tasks, different tasks may share higher-level structure despite requiring different transformations$\unicode{x2014}$for example, several tasks may involve reasoning about objects contained within other objects. Benchmarks such as ConceptARC capture this structure by grouping ARC-style tasks into recurring spatial and semantic concepts, but they often contain only a few manually constructed tasks per concept. We introduce ConceptARC at Scale, a generator for creating thousands of ARC-style tasks targeting a specific concept. Using this generator, we construct ConceptARC-100, a dataset of 1,600 new, manually reviewed tasks, with 100 tasks for each of the 16 concepts defined by ConceptARC$\unicode{x2014}$ten times the size of the original benchmark. We evaluate a range of recent LRMs and models trained from scratch on ConceptARC-100 to characterize which concepts they solve reliably and where they struggle. We further analyze the models' internal representations and find clear semantic structure: task representations cluster according to the operations applied to objects, such as recoloring, removal, or translation, even when realized through substantially different rules and scenarios. Together, our results suggest that models form stable abstractions of transformation operations that generalize across diverse tasks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Synthesizing symbolic models of human and machine reasoning at scale

Symbolic models offer a powerful account of cognition, but their scope has historically been limited by the need for hand-engineering and computational tractability. We show how advances in artificial intelligence (AI) can scale symbolic modeling and help overcome these engineering limitations. We introduce Behavior-Conditioned Symbolic Synthesis (BCSS)---an approach for automated search of interpretable, deterministic symbolic programs that verifiably reproduce behavior---and apply it to model both human and machine behavior across hundreds of challenging reasoning problems. Analyzing these programs reveals that both people and machines tend to oversimplify, adopt rules that are partial explanations for their observations, and misinfer dependencies between problem features. These shared signatures are modulated by available resources, with reasoning effort predicting the extent to which machines simplify and explain their observations. Together, these results point to underlying mechanisms reminiscent of satisficing in both people and machines, and illustrate how BCSS offers a general approach for interpreting and comparing rule-based reasoning of humans and black-box AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AIMO Interpretability Challenge

We propose the AIMO Interpretability Challenge, a competition on distinguishing robust from spurious reasoning in frontier mathematical language models based on the models' internal mechanisms. The challenge is motivated by a central limitation of standard reasoning benchmarks: strong final-answer accuracy does not reveal whether a model relies on stable reasoning mechanisms or exploits brittle reasoning shortcuts. Building on AI Mathematical Olympiad (AIMO) problems and submissions, together with resources from the Fields Model Initiative, the competition will provide (1) newly-published olympiad-level math reasoning problems and their symbolic representations, allowing generation of novel functional variants, (2) access to frontier reasoning models, and (3) assessments of models' adversarial robustness on these problems. Participants will use these resources, along with our computing infrastructure support, to develop methods for identifying which models solve problems robustly. Our competition will also create a new, open robustness benchmark and baseline systems, aiming to provide a lasting foundation for standard benchmarking in mathematical reasoning and interpretability. Scientifically, the competition connects interpretability and generalization research around a central question in AI research: can we determine if, and to what extent, the decision-making of frontier AI models is generalizable and thus, reliable?

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Last Translation Benchmark

For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, opaque, and vulnerable to reward-hacking. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Don't Forget! Decomposing the Training Dynamics of Memorization in Language Models

Memorization has been proposed as a mechanism to explain how language models fit the tail of their training distributions, but its training dynamics are not understood well. In this work, we take a fine-grained look at memorization by decomposing the loss trajectory of memorized sequences over training and model parameters. Across the Pythia family, we study memorization of duplicated training sequences (recitation) and rare ones (recollection). We find that memorization in both cases is characterized by sequence-level gradient alignment, though recitation suffers from misalignment with other training influences which causes forgetting, explaining the necessity for higher duplication of these examples. We further show that the lower model layers are the most involved in memorization and forgetting. Predicting memorization, our decomposition improves over a cross-entropy baseline, especially in larger models and early in training. Intervening on a small set of highly influential parameters we are able to ablate memorization in the final model. Together, these findings advance our understanding of how memorization develops during training and offer insights for predicting and intervening on it.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

LogicSkills: A Structured Benchmark for Formal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large language models perform well on many logical reasoning benchmarks, but it remains unclear which core logical skills they truly master. To address this, we introduce LogicSkills, a benchmark that isolates three fundamental logical skills: (i) $\textit{formal symbolization}\unicode{x2014}{}$translating premises into first-order logic; (ii) $\textit{countermodel construction}\unicode{x2014}$showing that an argument is logically invalid by constructing a finite countermodel; and (iii) $\textit{validity assessment}\unicode{x2014}$determining whether a conclusion follows from a set of premises. Items are drawn from the two-variable fragment of first-order logic without identity and are presented in both English and a Carrollian nonce-word language. All instances are solver-verified with Z3 for correctness and non-triviality. Across conventional instruction-tuned LLMs, performance is high on $\textit{validity assessment}$ but substantially lower on $\textit{formal symbolization}$ and $\textit{countermodel construction}$, highlighting that high task-level accuracy can mask weaknesses in core logical skills. In contrast, recent reasoning-tuned models perform strongly across all three tasks, suggesting a more systematic logical skill profile.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

ExPLAIND: Unifying Model, Data, and Training Attribution to Study Model Behavior

Post-hoc interpretability methods typically attribute a model's behavior to its components, data, or training trajectory in isolation, and are often tied to a particular level of granularity along the local-to-global spectrum. This leads to explanations that lack a unified view and may miss key interactions. We present ExPLAIND, a theoretically grounded, unified framework that integrates model components, data, and training trajectory while supporting explanations across granularities. We generalize recent work on gradient path kernels, reformulating models trained by AdamW as kernel machines. From the resulting kernel feature maps, we derive novel parameter-wise and step-wise influence scores. We empirically validate the resulting decomposition of model behavior in several settings and apply ExPLAIND to two case studies. Our findings on a Transformer exhibiting Grokking support previously proposed learning phases, while refining the final phase as one in which outer layers align around a representation pipeline learned after memorization. For EuroLLM pretraining, ExPLAIND reveals a two-phase dynamic, with the first characterized by outer-layer MLP learning and the second by increased relative influence of intermediate attention layers. These results establish ExPLAIND as a unified framework for interpreting model behavior and training dynamics.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Reasoning that Travels: Dissecting How Chain-of-Thought Transfers Across Models

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often generate extensive chain-of-thought (CoT) traces before producing a final answer. As explicit textual artifacts, these traces can be passed to other models to solve the same task, enabling cross-model reasoning transfer. Yet successful transfer alone does not reveal how the provided CoT contributes to another model's answer. We study this question with a controlled provider--receiver framework, where a provider generates a reasoning trace and a receiver solves the same problem from increasingly longer trace prefixes. We compare force-answer, where the receiver answers directly from the prefix, with free-generation, where it may continue reasoning before answering. Across models and benchmarks, full traces often transfer successfully, but prefix trajectories reveal distinct mechanisms. In force-answer mode, AIME transfer is largely driven by explicit answer availability. MMLU-Pro instead reflects a larger role for receiver competence, while ZebraLogic depends on partial structured-answer information rather than complete-answer leakage alone. In free-generation mode, partial CoTs improve performance across benchmarks, indicating that prefixes can guide continued reasoning. Finally, answer agreement among receivers provides a gold-free signal for stopping provider reasoning early. Overall, cross-model CoT transfer is not a single phenomenon: it can reflect answer extraction, reasoning scaffolding, or receiver-dependent competence.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

LPDS: Evaluating LLM Robustness Through Logic-Preserving Difficulty Scaling

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to perform tasks with minimal human oversight, it is crucial that these models operate robustly. In particular, a model that can solve a given problem should not fail simply because certain entities$\unicode{x2013}$such as names, numbers, or other contextual details$\unicode{x2013}$have changed while the underlying problem logic remains the same. Prior work suggests that current LLMs still struggle with this form of robustness: they often succeed on some variations of a problem but fail on others. However, existing evaluations often lack a systematic way to identify which logic-preserving variations are most likely to induce failure. Instead, they typically test a random subset of allowable variations, which can overstate robustness. To address this gap, we introduce logic-preserving difficulty scaling (LPDS), a framework that (i) quantifies the difficulty of a problem variation and (ii) systematically searches the space of allowable variations to find those that maximize difficulty and expose failures. We show that as difficulty increases, performance declines and errors in the models' reasoning chains become more pronounced. We further demonstrate that LPDS efficiently finds difficult problem variations for a model, resulting in performance drops up to 5 times larger compared to random sampling. Finally, we show that fine-tuning on more difficult variations leads to more consistent robustness gains than training on easier ones.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Tracing Uncertainty in Language Model "Reasoning"

Language model (LM) "reasoning", commonly described as Chain-of-Thought or test-time scaling, often improves benchmark performance, but the dynamics underlying this process remain poorly understood. We study these dynamics through the lens of uncertainty quantification by treating the "reasoning" traces, the intermediate token sequences generated by LMs, as evolving model states. We summarize each trace by an uncertainty trace profile: a small set of features describing the shape of the uncertainty signal over its trace, such as its slope and linearity. We find that across five LMs evaluated on GSM8K and ProntoQA, these profiles predict whether a trace yields a correct final answer with AUROC up to 0.807, improving markedly on recent related work. We reach AUROC 0.801 using only the first few hundred tokens of full traces, suggesting that errors can be detected early in the generation. A detailed comparison of correct and incorrect traces further reveals qualitatively distinct uncertainty profiles, with correct traces showing a steeper and less linear decline in uncertainty. Together, the results suggest that our method, grounded in decision-making under uncertainty, provides a principled lens for studying the generative process underlying LM "reasoning".

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Language Models Learn Universal Representations of Numbers and Here's Why You Should Care

Prior work has shown that large language models (LLMs) often converge to accurate input embedding for numbers, based on sinusoidal representations. In this work, we quantify that these representations are in fact strikingly systematic, to the point of being almost perfectly universal: different LLM families develop equivalent sinusoidal structures, and number representations are broadly interchangeable in a large swathe of experimental setups. We show that properly factoring in this characteristic is crucial when it comes to assessing how accurately LLMs encode numeric and other ordinal information, and that mechanistically enhancing this sinusoidality can also lead to reductions of LLMs' arithmetic errors.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

If Probable, Then Acceptable? Understanding Conditional Acceptability Judgments in Large Language Models

Conditional acceptability refers to how plausible a conditional statement is perceived to be. It plays an important role in communication and reasoning, as it influences how individuals interpret implications, assess arguments, and make decisions based on hypothetical scenarios. When humans evaluate how acceptable a conditional "If A, then B" is, their judgments are influenced by two main factors: the $\textit{conditional probability}$ of $B$ given $A$, and the $\textit{semantic relevance}$ of the antecedent $A$ given the consequent $B$ (i.e., whether $A$ meaningfully supports $B$). While prior work has examined how large language models (LLMs) draw inferences about conditional statements, it remains unclear how these models judge the $\textit{acceptability}$ of such statements. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive study of LLMs' conditional acceptability judgments across different model families, sizes, and prompting strategies. Using linear mixed-effects models and ANOVA tests, we find that models are sensitive to both conditional probability and semantic relevance$\unicode{x2014}$though to varying degrees depending on architecture and prompting style. A comparison with human data reveals that while LLMs incorporate probabilistic and semantic cues, they do so less consistently than humans. Notably, larger models do not necessarily align more closely with human judgments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Compositional-ARC: Assessing Systematic Generalization in Abstract Spatial Reasoning

Systematic generalization refers to the capacity to understand and generate novel combinations from known components. Despite recent progress by large language models (LLMs) across various domains, these models often fail to extend their knowledge to novel compositional scenarios, revealing notable limitations in systematic generalization. There has been an ongoing debate about whether neural networks possess the capacity for systematic generalization, with recent studies suggesting that meta-learning approaches designed for compositionality can significantly enhance this ability. However, these insights have largely been confined to linguistic problems, leaving their applicability to other tasks an open question. In this study, we extend meta-learning for compositionality to the domain of abstract spatial reasoning. To this end, we introduce $\textit{Compositional-ARC}\unicode{x2014}$a dataset designed to evaluate the capacity of models to systematically generalize from known geometric transformations (e.g., translation, rotation) of abstract two-dimensional objects to novel combinations of these transformations (e.g., translation+rotation). Our results show that a small transformer-based encoder-decoder model, trained via meta-learning for compositionality, can systematically generalize to previously unseen transformation compositions. Notably, despite having only 5.7M parameters, this model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs$\unicode{x2014}$including o3-mini, GPT-4o, and Gemini 2.0 Flash, which fail to exhibit similar systematic behavior$\unicode{x2014}$and performs on par with the winning model of the ARC prize 2024, an 8B-parameter LLM trained via test-time training. Our findings highlight the effectiveness of meta-learning in promoting systematicity beyond linguistic tasks, suggesting a promising direction toward more robust and generalizable models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

BlackboxNLP-2025 MIB Shared Task: Exploring Ensemble Strategies for Circuit Localization Methods

The Circuit Localization track of the Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark (MIB) evaluates methods for localizing circuits within large language models (LLMs), i.e., subnetworks responsible for specific task behaviors. In this work, we investigate whether ensembling two or more circuit localization methods can improve performance. We explore two variants: parallel and sequential ensembling. In parallel ensembling, we combine attribution scores assigned to each edge by different methods-e.g., by averaging or taking the minimum or maximum value. In the sequential ensemble, we use edge attribution scores obtained via EAP-IG as a warm start for a more expensive but more precise circuit identification method, namely edge pruning. We observe that both approaches yield notable gains on the benchmark metrics, leading to a more precise circuit identification approach. Finally, we find that taking a parallel ensemble over various methods, including the sequential ensemble, achieves the best results. We evaluate our approach in the BlackboxNLP 2025 MIB Shared Task, comparing ensemble scores to official baselines across multiple model-task combinations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Reason to Rote: Rethinking Memorization in Reasoning

Large language models readily memorize arbitrary training instances, such as label noise, yet they perform strikingly well on reasoning tasks. In this work, we investigate how language models memorize label noise, and why such memorization in many cases does not heavily affect generalizable reasoning capabilities. Using two controllable synthetic reasoning datasets with noisy labels, four-digit addition (FDA) and two-hop relational reasoning (THR), we discover a reliance of memorization on generalizable reasoning mechanisms: models continue to compute intermediate reasoning outputs even when retrieving memorized noisy labels, and intervening reasoning adversely affects memorization. We further show that memorization operates through distributed encoding, i.e., aggregating various inputs and intermediate results, rather than building a look-up mechanism from inputs to noisy labels. Moreover, our FDA case study reveals memorization occurs via outlier heuristics, where existing neuron activation patterns are slightly shifted to fit noisy labels. Together, our findings suggest that memorization of label noise in language models builds on, rather than overrides, the underlying reasoning mechanisms, shedding lights on the intriguing phenomenon of benign memorization.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Validation Gap: A Mechanistic Analysis of How Language Models Compute Arithmetic but Fail to Validate It

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to validate their output and identify potential errors is crucial for ensuring robustness and reliability. However, current research indicates that LLMs struggle with self-correction, encountering significant challenges in detecting errors. While studies have explored methods to enhance self-correction in LLMs, relatively little attention has been given to understanding the models' internal mechanisms underlying error detection. In this paper, we present a mechanistic analysis of error detection in LLMs, focusing on simple arithmetic problems. Through circuit analysis, we identify the computational subgraphs responsible for detecting arithmetic errors across four smaller-sized LLMs. Our findings reveal that all models heavily rely on $\textit{consistency heads}$--attention heads that assess surface-level alignment of numerical values in arithmetic solutions. Moreover, we observe that the models' internal arithmetic computation primarily occurs in higher layers, whereas validation takes place in middle layers, before the final arithmetic results are fully encoded. This structural dissociation between arithmetic computation and validation seems to explain why smaller-sized LLMs struggle to detect even simple arithmetic errors.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Circuit Compositions: Exploring Modular Structures in Transformer-Based Language Models

A fundamental question in interpretability research is to what extent neural networks, particularly language models, implement reusable functions through subnetworks that can be composed to perform more complex tasks. Recent advances in mechanistic interpretability have made progress in identifying $\textit{circuits}$, which represent the minimal computational subgraphs responsible for a model's behavior on specific tasks. However, most studies focus on identifying circuits for individual tasks without investigating how functionally similar circuits $\textit{relate}$ to each other. To address this gap, we study the modularity of neural networks by analyzing circuits for highly compositional subtasks within a transformer-based language model. Specifically, given a probabilistic context-free grammar, we identify and compare circuits responsible for ten modular string-edit operations. Our results indicate that functionally similar circuits exhibit both notable node overlap and cross-task faithfulness. Moreover, we demonstrate that the circuits identified can be reused and combined through set operations to represent more complex functional model capabilities.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, an extensible collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show substantial variance across models and datasets. Models are reliable evaluators on some tasks, but overall display substantial variability depending on the property being evaluated, the expertise level of the human judges, and whether the language is human or model-generated. We conclude that LLMs should be carefully validated against human judgments before being used as evaluators.

cs.CL↗