The Shape of Wisdom: Decision Trajectories in Language Models

Irrelevant numbers in a prompt can shift language model judgments, producing anchoring effects in numerical reasoning. We study where this anchor-sensitive signal is carried inside language models using a controlled multiple-choice setup with shared answer options. We define a logit-difference metric comparing the correct answer option with the answer option corresponding to the anchor, and validate that it tracks behavioral anchoring. Using attribution-based circuit localization on 7B--8B Qwen and Llama base and instruction-tuned models, we find that edge-level methods recover this signal more faithfully than node-level methods. Low- and high-anchor circuits transfer strongly within a model, suggesting shared pathway structure across anchor direction. However, sparse transfer across base and instruction-tuned variants is less reliable, indicating that post-training changes which pathways matter most. Overall, our results provide a mechanistic account of how anchoring-related decision signals are carried inside language models.

Language models often generate reasoning before giving a final answer, but the visible answer does not reveal when the model's answer preference became stable. We study this question through a narrow computable object: \emph{finite-answer preference stabilization}. For a model state and specified answer verbalizers, we project the model's own continuation probabilities onto a finite answer set; in binary tasks this yields an exact log-odds code, $δ(ξ)=S_θ(\mathrm{yes}\midξ)-S_θ(\mathrm{no}\midξ)$. This target defines parser-based answer onset, retrospective stabilization time, and lead without relying on greedy rollouts or learned probes. In controlled delayed-verdict tasks with Qwen3-4B-Instruct, the contextual finite-answer projection stabilizes before the answer is parseable, with 17--31 token mean lead in the main templates and positive, shorter lead in a parser-clean replication. The signal tracks the model's eventual output rather than truth, is linearly recoverable from compact hidden summaries, is partly separable from cursor progress, and transfers as shared information without a single invariant coordinate. Diagnostics separate the measurement from online stopping, verbalizer-free belief, and causal answer control; exact steering shows local sensitivity of $δ$ but not reliable generation control.

Language models often receive a question together with a claim about what another source answered. We audit whether such claims destabilize answers in multiple-choice question answering. For each item, we hold one wrong option fixed across misleading conditions and vary the cue template attached to it. We introduce \emph{neutral-conditioned misleading cue adoption rate} (NC-MCAR), which measures switches to that option only on valid cued trials where the same model first selected the gold answer under a neutral prompt. This is a measure of answer instability, not proof that the model knew the answer or that all deference is irrational. We evaluate four instruction-following models on MMLU-Pro and IndicMMLU-Pro in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Telugu. Across 220{,}000 outputs, the expert template yields 41.1% aggregate NC-MCAR, compared with 12.5% for the majority template. These two conditions use the same wrong option and final instruction. Filler accuracy remains well above expert-wrong accuracy, while correct-cue prompts have high valid-response accuracy. The audit documents answer instability relevant to grounding under the tested forced-choice prompts: a bare, unverified source claim can outweigh an answer that was previously consistent with the task evidence.