Transcoder attribution graphs are usually trained to explain why a model assigns high probability to a particular next token. We introduce Concept-Targeted Attribution (CTA), which instead trains attribution graphs with respect to a linear probe direction. CTA therefore yields probe-specific circuits that explain why an internal concept representation arises in a prompt, independently of whether it is expressed in the generated token. Using Cross-Layer Transcoders, we show that these probe-targeted graphs contain predictive structure: graph-level features predict probe accuracy across four widely studied concept categories (𝜌 = 0.91, R² = 0.84), while local features identify the sparse components driving per-prompt classification. This connects probe performance to interpretable circuit structure, allowing us to ask not only whether a probe works, but which internal computations make it work. Causal ablations further show that probe-targeted and logit-targeted graphs capture functionally distinct mechanisms. Removing probe-relevant features reduces internal concept scores while largely preserving generated tokens, whereas removing logit-relevant features changes the generated token in 92% to 100% of cases with near-zero effect on probe scores. CTA provides a framework for moving from behavioral probe accuracy to mechanistic explanations of probe performance, enabling more detailed audits of internal concept representations, including safety-critical ones.

Mechanistic interpretability seeks to understand how Large Language Models (LLMs) represent and process information. Recent approaches based on dictionary learning and transcoders enable representing model computation in terms of sparse, interpretable features and their interactions, giving rise to feature attribution graphs. However, these graphs are often large and redundant, limiting their interpretability in practice. Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) address this issue by sharing features across layers while preserving layer-specific decoding, yielding more compact representations, but remain difficult to train and analyze at scale. We introduce an open-source library for end-to-end training and interpretability of CLTs. Our framework integrates scalable distributed training with model sharding and compressed activation caching, a unified automated interpretability pipeline for feature analysis and explanation, attribution graph computation using Circuit-Tracer, and a flexible visualization interface. This provides a practical and unified solution for scaling CLT-based mechanistic interpretability. Our code is available at https://github.com/LLM-Interp/CLT-Forge.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have gained prominence due to their success in solving complex cross-modal tasks. However, the internal mechanisms of VLMs, particularly the roles of cross-attention and self-attention in multimodal integration, are not fully understood. To address this gap, we introduce NOTICE, a Gaussian-Noise-free Text-Image Corruption and Evaluation pipeline for mechanistic interpretability in VLMs. NOTICE introduces Semantic Image Pairs (SIP) corruption, the first visual counterpart to Symmetric Token Replacement (STR) for text. Through NOTICE, we uncover a set of “universal attention heads” in BLIP and LLaVA that consistently contribute across different tasks and modalities. In BLIP, cross-attention heads implement object detection, object suppression, and outlier suppression, whereas important self-attention heads in LLaVA only perform outlier suppression. Notably, our findings reveal that cross-attention heads perform image-grounding, while self-attention in LLaVA heads do not, highlighting key differences in how VLM architectures handle multimodal learning.

Despite strong performance on vision-language tasks, Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) struggle with mathematical problem-solving, with both open-source and state-of-the-art models falling short of human performance on visual-math benchmarks. To systematically examine visual-mathematical reasoning in MLLMs, we (1) evaluate their understanding of geometric primitives, (2) test multi-step reasoning, and (3) explore a potential solution to improve visual reasoning capabilities. Our findings reveal fundamental shortcomings in shape recognition, with top models achieving under 50% accuracy in identifying regular polygons. We analyze these failures through the lens of dual-process theory and show that MLLMs rely on System 1 (intuitive, memorized associations) rather than System 2 (deliberate reasoning). Consequently, MLLMs fail to count the sides of both familiar and novel shapes, suggesting they have neither learned the concept of “sides” nor effectively process visual inputs. Finally, we propose Visually Cued Chain-of-Thought (VC-CoT) prompting, which enhances multi-step mathematical reasoning by explicitly referencing visual annotations in diagrams, boosting GPT-4o’s accuracy on an irregular polygon side-counting task from 7% to 93%. Our findings suggest that System 2 reasoning in MLLMs remains an open problem, and visually-guided prompting is essential for successfully engaging visual reasoning.

Language Models (LMs) are being proposed for mental health applications where the heightened risk of adverse outcomes means predictive performance may not be a sufficient litmus test of a model’s utility in clinical practice. A model that can be trusted for practice should have a correspondence between explanation and clinical determination, yet no prior research has examined the attention fidelity of these models and their effect on ground truth explanations. We introduce an evaluation design that focuses on the robustness and explainability of LMs in identifying Wellness Dimensions (WDs). We focus on two existing mental health and well-being datasets: (a) Multi-label Classification-based MultiWD, and (b) WellXplain for evaluating attention mechanism veracity against expert-labeled explanations. The labels are based on Halbert Dunn’s theory of wellness, which gives grounding to our evaluation. We reveal four surprising results about LMs/LLMs: (1) Despite their human-like capabilities, GPT-3.5/4 lag behind RoBERTa, and MedAlpaca, a fine-tuned LLM on WellXplain fails to deliver any remarkable improvements in performance or explanations. (2) Re-examining LMs’ predictions based on a confidence-oriented loss function reveals a significant performance drop. (3) Across all LMs/LLMs, the alignment between attention and explanations remains low, with LLMs scoring a dismal 0.0. (4) Most mental health-specific LMs/LLMs overlook domain-specific knowledge and undervalue explanations, causing these discrepancies. This study highlights the need for further research into their consistency and explanations in mental health and well-being.