arXiv subjects

Sarah Wiegreffe

Publications and source records attributed to Sarah Wiegreffe.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Sweep Less, Steer More: Using Activation Steering Geometry for Reduced Hyperparameter Search

Representation steering methods like difference-in-means (DIM) offer a lightweight approach to controlling LLM behavior, but their effectiveness varies widely across concepts, datasets, and layers, making principled deployment costly without exhaustive hyperparameter sweeps. We build on the discriminability index $d'$, a compute-cheap geometric measure of how well contrastive training activations separate along the steering direction. Across five behaviors on 3 models, we demonstrate uses beyond its established role as a dataset-level steerability predictor. First, in the multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) setting, we show that $d'$ reliably identifies performant layers at which to steer, eliminating the need for a layer-wise sweep. Second, we extend this analysis to open-ended multi-token generation, and find that $d'$ remains successful for layer selection across different settings. Lastly, we test whether the position of a generated token's representation on the DIM line predicts steering success on that individual example. In the MCQA setting, this works for high-$d'$ datasets but is inconsistent across behaviors, models, and training-token choices in open-ended generation. This highlights that methods developed and conclusions drawn in single-token MCQA settings do not necessarily transfer to open-ended generation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Non-Gaussianity Reveals Interpretable Directions in Language Models

Finding human-interpretable directions in language-model activations is important for understanding and controlling model behavior. These directions are usually discovered through indirect learning objectives such as sparse reconstruction, but it remains unclear what existing statistical structure distinguishes interpretable directions and whether that structure can be used directly for feature discovery. We find that non-Gaussianity provides such a signature: projection distributions of natural-text residual-stream activations along sparse autoencoder (SAE) decoder directions are substantially more non-Gaussian than those along random directions, with most contexts forming a concentrated background and recurring patterns often occupying one tail. This raises a natural question: if interpretable directions tend to have non-Gaussian projection distributions, can we discover them by searching for non-Gaussian directions directly in activation space, without training another sparse dictionary? To test this hypothesis, we introduce ICA Lens, a practical workflow for efficient discovery, reliable annotation, and faithful evaluation of non-Gaussian directions in LLM residual-stream activations. Across GPT-2 Small, Gemma 2 2B, and Qwen 3.5 9B Base, we find that: (1) the recovered non-Gaussian directions capture coherent lexical, syntactic, and semantic patterns under both human and LLM-based evaluation; (2) non-Gaussianity is positively associated with both human-label confidence and automated interpretability; and (3) the resulting coordinates are competitive with SAEs across interpretability, sparse reconstruction, concept prediction, and targeted probe perturbation, while fitting in minutes per layer and using 7-43 times less memory. These results show that non-Gaussianity is a direct unsupervised signal for discovering interpretable and useful structure in activations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Quantifying the Gap between Understanding and Generation within Unified Multimodal Models

Recent advances in unified multimodal models (UMM) have demonstrated remarkable progress in both understanding and generation tasks. However, whether these two capabilities are genuinely aligned and integrated within a single model remains unclear. To investigate this question, we introduce GapEval, a bidirectional benchmark designed to quantify the gap between understanding and generation capabilities, and quantitatively measure the cognitive coherence of the two "unified" directions. Each question can be answered in both modalities (image and text), enabling a symmetric evaluation of a model's bidirectional inference capability and cross-modal consistency. Experiments reveal a persistent gap between the two directions across a wide range of UMMs with different architectures, suggesting that current models achieve only surface-level unification rather than deep cognitive convergence of the two. To further explore the underlying mechanism, we conduct an empirical study from the perspective of knowledge manipulation to illustrate the underlying limitations. Our findings indicate that knowledge within UMMs often remains disjoint. The capability emergence and knowledge across modalities are unsynchronized, paving the way for further exploration.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Trait-space Monitoring for Emergent Misalignment During Supervised Finetuning

Emergent misalignment (EM) occurs when narrow finetuning induces dangerous behavior outside the finetuning task. Detecting this shift through repeated behavioral evaluation is costly, motivating our checkpoint-level monitoring from internal representations. We define a fixed coordinate system from seven alignment-relevant activation directions and use it to track representational drift during LoRA finetuning of four open-source 7-9B language models. Finetuning drift in this space exhibits a dominant axis that explains 78.6% of variance and remains stable across datasets, extraction choices, and parameter-update capacities. Across 468 checkpoints from three EM-relevant held-out datasets, the resulting monitors attain 1.8% FNR, 2.0% FPR, and 0.989 AUROC, outperforming semantic, random, PCA, and SAE feature baselines. On a fourth dataset, a matched benign-dangerous control shows that substantial representational drift can also occur under benign finetuning, while changes across the 7D profile still distinguish dangerous from benign runs. Stress tests across two 14B models, full finetuning, longer training horizons, and misaligned starting states show that the signal can persist across shifts in training configuration, while reliable deployment may require recalibration.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

What Drives Representation Steering? A Mechanistic Case Study on Steering Refusal

Applying steering vectors to large language models (LLMs) is an efficient and effective model alignment technique, but we lack an interpretable explanation for how it works--specifically, what internal mechanisms steering vectors affect and how this results in different model outputs. To investigate the causal mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of steering vectors, we conduct a comprehensive case study on refusal. We propose a multi-token activation patching framework and discover that different steering methodologies leverage functionally interchangeable circuits when applied at the same layer. These circuits reveal that steering vectors primarily interact with the attention mechanism through the OV circuit while largely ignoring the QK circuit. Freezing all attention scores during steering drops performance by only 8.83% across three model families. A mathematical decomposition of the steered OV circuit further reveals semantically interpretable concepts, even in cases where the steering vector itself does not. Leveraging the activation patching results, we show that steering vectors can be sparsified by up to 85-96% while retaining most performance, and that different steering methodologies agree on a subset of important dimensions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Are Latent Reasoning Models Easily Interpretable?

Latent reasoning models (LRMs) have attracted significant research interest due to their low inference cost (relative to explicit reasoning models) and theoretical ability to explore multiple reasoning paths in parallel. However, these benefits come at the cost of reduced interpretability: LRMs are difficult to monitor because they do not reason in natural language. This paper presents an investigation into LRM interpretability by examining two state-of-the-art LRMs. First, we find that latent reasoning tokens are often unnecessary for LRMs' predictions; on logical reasoning datasets, LRMs can almost always produce the same final answers without using latent reasoning at all. This underutilization of reasoning tokens may partially explain why LRMs do not consistently outperform explicit reasoning methods and raises doubts about the stated role of these tokens in prior work. Second, we demonstrate that when latent reasoning tokens are necessary for performance, we can decode gold reasoning traces up to 65-93% of the time for correctly predicted instances. This suggests LRMs often implement the expected solution rather than an uninterpretable reasoning process. Finally, we present a method to decode a verified natural language reasoning trace from latent tokens without knowing a gold reasoning trace a priori, demonstrating that it is possible to find a verified trace for a majority of correct predictions but only a minority of incorrect predictions. Our findings highlight that current LRMs largely encode interpretable processes, and interpretability itself can be a signal of prediction correctness.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Arguments that Alter Minds: LLM Rationales Sway Human (and LLM) Notions of Plausibility

We investigate the degree to which human (and LLM) plausibility judgments of multiple-choice commonsense benchmark answers are subject to influence by (im)plausibility arguments for or against an answer, in particular, using rationales generated by LLMs. We collect 3,000 plausibility judgments from humans and another 13,600 judgments from LLMs. Overall, we observe increases and decreases in mean human plausibility ratings in the presence of LLM-generated PRO and CON rationales, respectively, suggesting that, on the whole, human judges find these rationales convincing. Experiments with LLMs reveal similar patterns of influence. Our findings demonstrate a novel use of LLMs for studying aspects of human cognition, while also raising practical concerns that, even in domains where humans are ``experts'' (i.e., common sense), LLMs have the potential to exert considerable influence on people's beliefs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

A Closer Look at Failure Modes in Temporal Understanding of Large Audio-Language Models

Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) achieve strong performance on a variety of audio understanding tasks but continue to struggle with temporal reasoning, a fundamental capability central to human auditory perception. Understanding the causes of these failures remains challenging as existing benchmarks report performance gaps without probing underlying mechanisms. To address this, we introduce a benchmark with 1,657 questions across three foundational tasks designed specifically for mechanistic analysis. Examining model outputs across varying input settings (behavioral analysis) reveals that models often under-utilize audio when textual cues are available. We also provide the first causal mechanistic analysis of temporal reasoning failures in LALMs. Comparing attention upweighting against scaling, we find that redistributing attention across audio tokens is more effective than increasing audio attention. Targeting task-relevant tokens yields further gains. These findings suggest that modality imbalance alone cannot explain failures. Attention scaling at bottleneck layers improves accuracy from 55.9% to 59.1% without fine-tuning, demonstrating a promising direction for future work.

cs.SD↗

arXiv2026

Localizing Anchoring Pathways in Language Models

Irrelevant numbers in a prompt can shift language model judgments, producing anchoring effects in numerical reasoning. We study where this anchor-sensitive signal is carried inside language models using a controlled multiple-choice setup with shared answer options. We define a logit-difference metric comparing the correct answer option with the answer option corresponding to the anchor, and validate that it tracks behavioral anchoring. Using attribution-based circuit localization on 7B--8B Qwen and Llama base and instruction-tuned models, we find that edge-level methods recover this signal more faithfully than node-level methods. Low- and high-anchor circuits transfer strongly within a model, suggesting shared pathway structure across anchor direction. However, sparse transfer across base and instruction-tuned variants is less reliable, indicating that post-training changes which pathways matter most. Overall, our results provide a mechanistic account of how anchoring-related decision signals are carried inside language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Interpretability Can Be Actionable

Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks. Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact, raising questions about its relevance and utility. This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability--the extent to which insights enable concrete decisions and interventions beyond interpretability research itself. We define actionable interpretability along two dimensions--concreteness and validation--and analyze the barriers currently preventing real-world impact. To address these barriers, we identify five domains where interpretability offers unique leverage and present a framework for actionable interpretability with evaluation criteria aligned with practical outcomes. Our goal is not to downplay exploratory research, but to establish actionability as a core objective of interpretability research.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Can you map it to English? The Role of Cross-Lingual Alignment in Multilingual Performance of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) can answer prompts in many languages, despite being trained predominantly on English; yet, the mechanisms driving this generalization remain poorly understood. This work asks: How does an LLM's ability to align representations of non-English inputs to English impact its performance on natural language understanding (NLU) tasks? We study the role of representation alignment in instance-level task decisions, complementing prior analyses conducted both at the language level and task-independently. We introduce the Discriminative Alignment Index ($\DALI$) to quantify instance-level alignment across 24 languages other than English and three distinct NLU tasks. Results show that incorrect NLU predictions are strongly associated with lower representation alignment with English in the model's middle layers. Through activation patching, we show that incorrect predictions in languages other than English can be fixed by patching their parallel English activations in the middle layers, thereby demonstrating the causal role of representation (mis)alignment in cross-lingual correctness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MIB: A Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark

How can we know whether new mechanistic interpretability methods achieve real improvements? In pursuit of lasting evaluation standards, we propose MIB, a Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark, with two tracks spanning four tasks and five models. MIB favors methods that precisely and concisely recover relevant causal pathways or 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 align those features to a task-relevant causal variable. 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., non-featurized hidden vectors. These findings illustrate that MIB enables meaningful comparisons, and increases our confidence that there has been real progress in the field.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

On Linear Representations and Pretraining Data Frequency in Language Models

Pretraining data has a direct impact on the behaviors and quality of language models (LMs), but we only understand the most basic principles of this relationship. While most work focuses on pretraining data's effect on downstream task behavior, we investigate its relationship to LM representations. Previous work has discovered that, in language models, some concepts are encoded `linearly' in the representations, but what factors cause these representations to form? We study the connection between pretraining data frequency and models' linear representations of factual relations. We find evidence that the formation of linear representations is strongly connected to pretraining term frequencies; specifically for subject-relation-object fact triplets, both subject-object co-occurrence frequency and in-context learning accuracy for the relation are highly correlated with linear representations. This is the case across all phases of pretraining. In OLMo-7B and GPT-J, we discover that a linear representation consistently (but not exclusively) forms when the subjects and objects within a relation co-occur at least 1k and 2k times, respectively, regardless of when these occurrences happen during pretraining. Finally, we train a regression model on measurements of linear representation quality in fully-trained LMs that can predict how often a term was seen in pretraining. Our model achieves low error even on inputs from a different model with a different pretraining dataset, providing a new method for estimating properties of the otherwise-unknown training data of closed-data models. We conclude that the strength of linear representations in LMs contains signal about the models' pretraining corpora that may provide new avenues for controlling and improving model behavior: particularly, manipulating the models' training data to meet specific frequency thresholds.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Answer, Assemble, Ace: Understanding How LMs Answer Multiple Choice Questions

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is a key competence of performant transformer language models that is tested by mainstream benchmarks. However, recent evidence shows that models can have quite a range of performance, particularly when the task format is diversified slightly (such as by shuffling answer choice order). In this work we ask: how do successful models perform formatted MCQA? We employ vocabulary projection and activation patching methods to localize key hidden states that encode relevant information for predicting the correct answer. We find that the prediction of a specific answer symbol is causally attributed to a few middle layers, and specifically their multi-head self-attention mechanisms. We show that subsequent layers increase the probability of the predicted answer symbol in vocabulary space, and that this probability increase is associated with a sparse set of attention heads with unique roles. We additionally uncover differences in how different models adjust to alternative symbols. Finally, we demonstrate that a synthetic task can disentangle sources of model error to pinpoint when a model has learned formatted MCQA, and show that logit differences between answer choice tokens continue to grow over the course of training.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Models

Chat-based language models are designed to be helpful, yet they should not comply with every user request. While most existing work primarily focuses on refusal of "unsafe" queries, we posit that the scope of noncompliance should be broadened. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of contextual noncompliance describing when and how models should not comply with user requests. Our taxonomy spans a wide range of categories including incomplete, unsupported, indeterminate, and humanizing requests (in addition to unsafe requests). To test noncompliance capabilities of language models, we use this taxonomy to develop a new evaluation suite of 1000 noncompliance prompts. We find that most existing models show significantly high compliance rates in certain previously understudied categories with models like GPT-4 incorrectly complying with as many as 30% of requests. To address these gaps, we explore different training strategies using a synthetically-generated training set of requests and expected noncompliant responses. Our experiments demonstrate that while direct finetuning of instruction-tuned models can lead to both over-refusal and a decline in general capabilities, using parameter efficient methods like low rank adapters helps to strike a good balance between appropriate noncompliance and other capabilities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Measuring and Improving Attentiveness to Partial Inputs with Counterfactuals

The inevitable appearance of spurious correlations in training datasets hurts the generalization of NLP models on unseen data. Previous work has found that datasets with paired inputs are prone to correlations between a specific part of the input (e.g., the hypothesis in NLI) and the label; consequently, models trained only on those outperform chance. Are these correlations picked up by models trained on the full input data? To address this question, we propose a new evaluation method, Counterfactual Attentiveness Test (CAT). CAT uses counterfactuals by replacing part of the input with its counterpart from a different example (subject to some restrictions), expecting an attentive model to change its prediction. Using CAT, we systematically investigate established supervised and in-context learning models on ten datasets spanning four tasks: natural language inference, reading comprehension, paraphrase detection, and visual & language reasoning. CAT reveals that reliance on such correlations is mainly data-dependent. Surprisingly, we find that GPT3 becomes less attentive with an increased number of demonstrations, while its accuracy on the test data improves. Our results demonstrate that augmenting training or demonstration data with counterfactuals is effective in improving models' attentiveness. We show that models' attentiveness measured by CAT reveals different conclusions from solely measuring correlations in data.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Mechanistic?

The rise of the term "mechanistic interpretability" has accompanied increasing interest in understanding neural models -- particularly language models. However, this jargon has also led to a fair amount of confusion. So, what does it mean to be "mechanistic"? We describe four uses of the term in interpretability research. The most narrow technical definition requires a claim of causality, while a broader technical definition allows for any exploration of a model's internals. However, the term also has a narrow cultural definition describing a cultural movement. To understand this semantic drift, we present a history of the NLP interpretability community and the formation of the separate, parallel "mechanistic" interpretability community. Finally, we discuss the broad cultural definition -- encompassing the entire field of interpretability -- and why the traditional NLP interpretability community has come to embrace it. We argue that the polysemy of "mechanistic" is the product of a critical divide within the interpretability community.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Plausibly Problematic Questions in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for Commonsense Reasoning

Questions involving commonsense reasoning about everyday situations often admit many $\textit{possible}$ or $\textit{plausible}$ answers. In contrast, multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks for commonsense reasoning require a hard selection of a single correct answer, which, in principle, should represent the $\textit{most}$ plausible answer choice. On $250$ MCQ items sampled from two commonsense reasoning benchmarks, we collect $5,000$ independent plausibility judgments on answer choices. We find that for over 20% of the sampled MCQs, the answer choice rated most plausible does not match the benchmark gold answers; upon manual inspection, we confirm that this subset exhibits higher rates of problems like ambiguity or semantic mismatch between question and answer choices. Experiments with LLMs reveal low accuracy and high variation in performance on the subset, suggesting our plausibility criterion may be helpful in identifying more reliable benchmark items for commonsense evaluation.

cs.CL↗