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 circuits, 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 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.

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.

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.

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 tasks 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.

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 consistency heads\textemdash{}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.

Deductive reasoning plays a pivotal role in the formulation of sound and cohesive arguments. It allows individuals to draw conclusions that logically follow, given the truth value of the information provided. Recent progress in the domain of large language models (LLMs) has showcased their capability in executing deductive reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, a significant portion of research primarily assesses the accuracy of LLMs in solving such tasks, often overlooking a deeper analysis of their reasoning behavior. In this study, we draw upon principles from cognitive psychology to examine inferential strategies employed by LLMs, through a detailed evaluation of their responses to propositional logic problems. Our findings indicate that LLMs display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans, including strategies like supposition following or chain construction. Moreover, our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning, with more advanced models tending to adopt strategies more frequently than less sophisticated ones. Importantly, we assert that a model’s accuracy, that is the correctness of its final conclusion, does not necessarily reflect the validity of its reasoning process. This distinction underscores the necessity for more nuanced evaluation procedures in the field.