How Much Do Circuits Tell Us? Measuring the Consistency and Specificity of Language Model Circuits

Circuit discovery aims to explain how language models (LMs) implement a specific task by localizing and interpreting a circuit, a computational subgraph responsible for the LM's behavior. Existing circuit discovery methods are hypothesis-driven; they first informally define a task with a dataset, and then apply a circuit discovery algorithm over that dataset to obtain a single circuit. This imposes two strong assumptions: that the LM implements the task with a single circuit, and that the dataset adequately represents the task as humans understand it. We systematically test these assumptions across four previously studied tasks and find that even minor dataset variations that preserve task semantics can produce circuits with low edge overlap and cross-dataset faithfulness. More strikingly, when applied to a mixed dataset with two distinct tasks whose separately discovered circuits have near-zero cross-faithfulness, existing methods still return a single circuit with high faithfulness across both tasks. This indicates that current methods discover dataset-specific circuits, rather than general task circuits. We propose Data-driven Circuit Discovery (DCD), a new discovery framework that drops both assumptions: instead of returning a single circuit for a dataset, DCD first clusters examples in the dataset by how similarly the model processes them and discovers a separate circuit for each group. This allows distinct mechanisms to appear separately rather than merged into a single circuit; each circuit explains its group, not the full task. Experiments show that DCD discovers multiple circuits per dataset, each more faithful to its group than a single circuit discovered by existing methods. Broadly, DCD lets the data reveal mechanistic structure within LMs, rather than relying on human-defined task boundaries that may not align with how models organize their computation.

A prominent research direction in mechanistic interpretability is learning sparse circuits over LLM components to reveal how they jointly produce model behavior. However, raw neurons are polysemantic, making learned circuits hard to interpret. Sparse autoencoder (SAE) features alleviate this, but their high dimensionality makes existing intervention-based circuit learning methods computationally prohibitive. We propose CircuitLasso, a scalable circuit-learning approach based on sparse linear regression. CircuitLasso recovers circuits whose structural accuracy matches that of state-of-the-art intervention-based methods on the benchmark data, at a fraction of the computational cost. For interpretability, CircuitLasso efficiently uncovers relationships among SAE features, showing how human-interpretable semantic features propagate through the model and influence its predictions. Finally, we validate the utility of our learned circuits by leveraging their insights to achieve comparable performance at substantially lower cost on a domain-generalization task.

We test whether a single screen-and-ablate recipe -- identify attention-head circuits by task-pattern selectivity, then verify by causal ablation against a matched-random null -- produces consistent mechanistic claims across model families. The recipe ports across pipelines; the specific circuit it identifies does not. Across four composed tasks (indirect-object identification, greater-than, successor sequences, variable binding) and three 1B-class language models from distinct training pipelines (Pythia 1B / Pile / dense; OLMo 1B / DCLM / dense; OLMoE 1B-7B / DCLM / mixture-of-experts), we run a unified protocol with the matched-random null sampled across ten seeds per cell. The resulting 12 (task, model) cells contain no two that share the same primary causal screen at comparable effect size: the same task, with the same behavioral capability, is implemented through different attention-pattern types across models. We introduce a five-category screen-outcome taxonomy -- primary cause, secondary cause, correlate, interferer, null -- with quantitative thresholds, and show that all five outcomes appear in the panel. We propose a falsifiable hypothesis: the MoE model in our panel builds composed-task circuits on top of a foundational previous-token positional substrate (the prev-token-circuit ablation is the strongest causal screen on 3 of 4 tasks for OLMoE 1B-7B), with the IOI exception consistent with IOI being a final-position name-copying task whose structure directly probes a different pattern. The hypothesis comes with explicit predictions for other MoE language models. We frame the methodology honestly: the spectral participation-ratio signal from the companion methodology paper is a general indicator of specialized computation; what makes a finding task-specific is the task-pattern screen plus a per-model causal verification.