When trained on tasks requiring an understanding of hierarchical structure, transformers have been found to represent this hierarchy in distinct ways: in the geometry of the residual stream, and in stack-like attention patterns maintaining a last-in, first-out ordering. However, it remains unclear whether these representations are causally used or merely decodable. We examine this gap in transformers trained on the Dyck language (a formal language of balanced bracket sequences), where the hierarchical ground truth is explicit. By probing and intervening on the residual stream and attention patterns, we find that depth, distance, and top-of-stack signals are all decodable, yet their causal roles diverge. Specifically, masking attention to the true top-of-stack position causes a sharp drop in long-distance accuracy, while ablating low-dimensional residual stream subspaces has comparatively little effect. These results, which extend to a templated natural language setting, suggest that even in a controlled setting where the relevant hierarchical variables are known, decodability alone does not imply causal use.
Formal languages have proven to be effective conduits to understand the inner mechanisms of transformers. Past work has shown that transformers trained on next token prediction over counter languages learn representations consistent with an underlying stack structure. Beyond representational analysis, this paper investigates the causal role of these representations. Linear probes are trained to predict the stack depth at each token from the model's hidden states, and a principal representation direction is extracted from the probe. Ablation of this direction from the model causes sequential accuracy to collapse to near 0%, providing strong empirical evidence that the stack representation is not just learned, but is causally necessary for model performance.
Probes are routinely paired with an intervention: ablate the direction the probe found, run the model, and read the change in task accuracy, taking a large drop as evidence that the computation depends on what the probe read and a near-zero drop as evidence that it does not. Either inference requires that the ablation have removed the target from the layer. We find that the ablation does not remove what it targets. A probe refitted on the ablated activations recovers its original accuracy in every cell we test, and keeps recovering when the probe's entire row space is deleted rather than a single axis, because the quantity survives in the orthogonal complement. Because a refitted probe recovers, neither a large task drop nor a near-zero one establishes whether the model needed the target, and one probe fit detects this. Replacing the ablation with iterative nullspace projection, scored against random subspaces of matched dimension, reverses the conclusion: representations that looked causally inert carry most of the task. The correction also separates where a variable is most readable from where deleting it does most damage, and those are not the same layer in any pretrained model we study. The erasure is defined by a linear probe family, so removing a nonlinearly encoded quantity remains open.
Discourse relations provide document structure, critical to language understanding and enabling language model performance and ethicality. In this work, we investigate how instruction-tuned Transformer models (LLaMA and Mistral) encode discourse relations in English, with a particular focus on the contrasting relations of causation and antithesis. Framing the task as a next-token prediction task and applying a suite of interpretability techniques to test model internals, our findings show that certain early layers make predictive decisions at mid-sequence tokens, while some mid-level layers finalize their decisions closer to the last token. Most of the remaining layers primarily propagate earlier decisions rather than actively influencing them. Additionally, we observe that some layers exhibit a preference for one answer over alternatives, suggesting asymmetric representation of discourse-based reasoning.\footnote{Our code is available at https://github.com/abhidipbhattacharyya/causation_vs_antithesis}