Many Circuits, One Mechanism: Input Variation and Evaluation Granularity in Circuit Discovery

Circuit discovery methods identify subgraphs that explain specific model behaviors, and structural differences between discovered circuits are commonly interpreted as evidence of distinct mechanisms. We test this assumption by varying input statistics while holding the task fixed, and show that the resulting structural differences exhibit apparent specialization but do not correspond to functional differences, a pattern we term phantom specialization. Using Literal Sequence Copying across four token-frequency bands plus a control condition in five Pythia models (70M-1.4B), we extract 75 circuits and find that structurally distinct circuits implement the same computation: band-specific edges transfer broadly across bands, a core shared across most bands recovers at least 99% of circuit performance, and causal interchange interventions confirm that internal representations are interchangeable across frequency bands. Repeated extractions within the same frequency band further suggest that discovery algorithms sample from an equivalence class of valid subgraphs rather than recovering a unique mechanism. Standard evaluation practice obscures this pattern: source-level evaluation inflates apparent faithfulness, while edge-level evaluation reveals the many-to-one mapping from structure to function. Our results show that structural differences between circuits are not sufficient evidence for distinct mechanisms, and that exposing this requires edge-level evaluation and cross-condition transfer tests.

LLM-based Rewriting of Inappropriate Argumentation using Reinforcement Learning from Machine Feedback

Ensuring that online discussions are civil and productive is a major challenge for social media platforms. Such platforms usually rely both on users and on automated detection tools to flag inappropriate arguments of other users, which moderators then review. However, this kind of post-hoc moderation is expensive and time-consuming, and moderators are often overwhelmed by the amount and severity of flagged content. Instead, a promising alternative is to prevent negative behavior during content creation. This paper studies how inappropriate language in arguments can be computationally mitigated. We propose a reinforcement learning-based rewriting approach that balances content preservation and appropriateness based on existing classifiers, prompting an instruction-finetuned large language model (LLM) as our initial policy. Unlike related style transfer tasks, rewriting inappropriate arguments allows deleting and adding content permanently. It is therefore tackled on document level rather than sentence level. We evaluate different weighting schemes for the reward function in both absolute and relative human assessment studies. Systematic experiments on non-parallel data provide evidence that our approach can mitigate the inappropriateness of arguments while largely preserving their content. It significantly outperforms competitive baselines, including few-shot learning, prompting, and humans.