Differentiable Faithfulness Alignment for Cross-Model Circuit Transfer

Mechanistic interpretability has made it possible to localize circuits underlying specific behaviors in language models, but existing methods are expensive, model-specific, and difficult to scale to larger architectures. We introduce \textbf{Differentiable Faithfulness Alignment (DFA)}, a framework that transfers circuit information from a smaller source model to a larger target model through a learned differentiable alignment. DFA projects source-model node importance scores into the target model and trains this mapping with a soft faithfulness objective, avoiding full circuit discovery on the target model. We evaluate DFA on Llama-3 and Qwen-2.5 across six tasks spanning factual retrieval, multiple-choice reasoning, and arithmetic. The strongest results occur on Llama-3 $1$B$\rightarrow3$B, where aligned circuits are often competitive with direct node attribution and zero-shot transfer remains effective. Recovery weakens for larger source--target gaps and is substantially lower on Qwen-2.5, suggesting that transfer becomes harder as architectural and scaling differences increase. Overall, DFA consistently outperforms simple baselines and, in some settings, recovers target-model circuits with faithfulness comparable to or stronger than direct attribution. These results suggest that smaller models can provide useful mechanistic priors for larger ones, while highlighting both the promise and the limits of node-level cross-model circuit alignment.\footnote{Code is available at https://github.com/jasonshaoshun/dfa-circuits.

Reasoning Models Know What's Important, and Encode It in Their Activations

Language models often solve complex tasks by generating long reasoning chains, consisting of many steps with varying importance. While some steps are crucial for generating the final answer, others are removable. Determining which steps matter most, and why, remains an open question central to understanding how models process reasoning. We investigate if this question is best approached through model internals or through tokens of the reasoning chain itself. We find that model activations contain more information than tokens for identifying important reasoning steps. Crucially, by training probes on model activations to predict importance, we show that models encode an internal representation of step importance, even prior to the generation of subsequent steps. This internal representation of importance generalizes across models, is distributed across layers, and does not correlate with surface-level features, such as a step's relative position or its length. Our findings suggest that analyzing activations can reveal aspects of reasoning that surface-level approaches fundamentally miss, indicating that reasoning analyses should look into model internals.

From Feelings to Metrics: Understanding and Formalizing How Users Vibe-Test LLMs

Evaluating LLMs is challenging, as benchmark scores often fail to capture models' real-world usefulness. Instead, users often rely on ``vibe-testing'': informal experience-based evaluation, such as comparing models on coding tasks related to their own workflow. While prevalent, vibe-testing is often too ad hoc and unstructured to analyze or reproduce at scale. In this work, we study how vibe-testing works in practice and then formalize it to support systematic analysis. We first analyze two empirical resources: (1) a survey of user evaluation practices, and (2) a collection of in-the-wild model comparison reports from blogs and social media. Based on these resources, we formalize vibe-testing as a two-part process: users personalize both what they test and how they judge responses. We then introduce a proof-of-concept evaluation pipeline that follows this formulation by generating personalized prompts and comparing model outputs using user-aware subjective criteria. In experiments on coding benchmarks, we find that combining personalized prompts and user-aware evaluation can change which model is preferred, reflecting the role of vibe-testing in practice. These findings suggest that formalized vibe-testing can serve as a useful approach for bridging benchmark scores and real-world experience.

Masked by Consensus: Disentangling Privileged Knowledge in LLM Correctness

Humans use introspection to evaluate their understanding through private internal states inaccessible to external observers. We investigate whether large language models possess similar privileged knowledge about answer correctness, information unavailable through external observation. We train correctness classifiers on question representations from both a model's own hidden states and external models, testing whether self-representations provide a performance advantage. On standard evaluation, we find no advantage: self-probes perform comparably to peer-model probes. We hypothesize this is due to high inter-model agreement of answer correctness. To isolate genuine privileged knowledge, we evaluate on disagreement subsets, where models produce conflicting predictions. Here, we discover domain-specific privileged knowledge: self-representations consistently outperform peer representations in factual knowledge tasks, but show no advantage in math reasoning. We further localize this domain asymmetry across model layers, finding that the factual advantage emerges progressively from early-to-mid layers onward, consistent with model-specific memory retrieval, while math reasoning shows no consistent advantage at any depth.

Large Language Models Generate Harmful Content Using a Distinct, Unified Mechanism

Large language models (LLMs) undergo alignment training to avoid harmful behaviors, yet the resulting safeguards remain brittle: jailbreaks routinely bypass them, and fine-tuning on narrow domains can induce ``emergent misalignment'' that generalizes broadly. Whether this brittleness reflects a fundamental lack of coherent internal organization for harmfulness remains unclear. Here we use targeted weight pruning as a causal intervention to probe the internal organization of harmfulness in LLMs. We find that harmful content generation depends on a compact set of weights that are general across harm types and distinct from benign capabilities. Aligned models exhibit a greater compression of harm generation weights than unaligned counterparts, indicating that alignment reshapes harmful representations internally--despite the brittleness of safety guardrails at the surface level. This compression explains emergent misalignment: if weights of harmful capabilities are compressed, fine-tuning that engages these weights in one domain can trigger broad misalignment. Consistent with this, pruning harm generation weights in a narrow domain substantially reduces emergent misalignment. Notably, LLMs harmful generation capability is dissociated from how they recognize and explain such content. Together, these results reveal a coherent internal structure for harmfulness in LLMs that may serve as a foundation for more principled approaches to safety.

Pitfalls in Evaluating Interpretability Agents

Automated interpretability systems aim to reduce the need for human labor and scale analysis to increasingly large models and diverse tasks. Recent efforts toward this goal leverage large language models (LLMs) at increasing levels of autonomy, ranging from fixed one-shot workflows to fully autonomous interpretability agents. This shift creates a corresponding need to scale evaluation approaches to keep pace with both the volume and complexity of generated explanations. We investigate this challenge in the context of automated circuit analysis -- explaining the roles of model components when performing specific tasks. To this end, we build an agentic system in which a research agent iteratively designs experiments and refines hypotheses. When evaluated against human expert explanations across six circuit analysis tasks in the literature, the system appears competitive. However, closer examination reveals several pitfalls of replication-based evaluation: human expert explanations can be subjective or incomplete, outcome-based comparisons obscure the research process, and LLM-based systems may reproduce published findings via memorization or informed guessing. To address some of these pitfalls, we propose an unsupervised intrinsic evaluation based on the functional interchangeability of model components. Our work demonstrates fundamental challenges in evaluating complex automated interpretability systems and reveals key limitations of replication-based evaluation.

Induction Meets Biology: Mechanisms of Repeat Detection in Protein Language Models

Protein sequences are abundant in repeating segments, both as exact copies and as approximate segments with mutations. These repeats are important for protein structure and function, motivating decades of algorithmic work on repeat identification. Recent work has shown that protein language models (PLMs) identify repeats, by examining their behavior in masked-token prediction. To elucidate their internal mechanisms, we investigate how PLMs detect both exact and approximate repeats. We find that the mechanism for approximate repeats functionally subsumes that of exact repeats. We then characterize this mechanism, revealing two main stages: PLMs first build feature representations using both general positional attention heads and biologically specialized components, such as neurons that encode amino-acid similarity. Then, induction heads attend to aligned tokens across repeated segments, promoting the correct answer. Our results reveal how PLMs solve this biological task by combining language-based pattern matching with specialized biological knowledge, thereby establishing a basis for studying more complex evolutionary processes in PLMs.

Mechanisms of AI Protein Folding in ESMFold

How do protein structure prediction models fold proteins? We investigate this question by tracing how ESMFold folds a beta hairpin, a prevalent structural motif. Through counterfactual interventions on model latents, we identify two computational stages in the folding trunk. In the first stage, early blocks initialize pairwise biochemical signals: residue identities and associated biochemical features such as charge flow from sequence representations into pairwise representations. In the second stage, late blocks develop pairwise spatial features: distance and contact information accumulate in the pairwise representation. We demonstrate that the mechanisms underlying structural decisions of ESMFold can be localized, traced through interpretable representations, and manipulated with strong causal effects.

Decomposing Query-Key Feature Interactions Using Contrastive Covariances

Despite the central role of attention heads in Transformers, we lack tools to understand why a model attends to a particular token. To address this, we study the query-key (QK) space -- the bilinear joint embedding space between queries and keys. We present a contrastive covariance method to decompose the QK space into low-rank, human-interpretable components. It is when features in keys and queries align in these low-rank subspaces that high attention scores are produced. We first study our method both analytically and empirically in a simplified setting. We then apply our method to large language models to identify human-interpretable QK subspaces for categorical semantic features and binding features. Finally, we demonstrate how attention scores can be attributed to our identified features.

Investigating the Development of Task-Oriented Communication in Vision-Language Models

We investigate whether \emph{LLM-based agents} can develop task-oriented communication protocols that differ from standard natural language in collaborative reasoning tasks. Our focus is on two core properties such task-oriented protocols may exhibit: Efficiency -- conveying task-relevant information more concisely than natural language, and Covertness -- becoming difficult for external observers to interpret, raising concerns about transparency and control. To investigate these aspects, we use a referential-game framework in which vision-language model (VLM) agents communicate, providing a controlled, measurable setting for evaluating language variants. Experiments show that VLMs can develop effective, task-adapted communication patterns. At the same time, they can develop covert protocols that are difficult for humans and external agents to interpret. We also observe spontaneous coordination between similar models without explicitly shared protocols. These findings highlight both the potential and the risks of task-oriented communication, and position referential games as a valuable testbed for future work in this area.