Abstract
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.
Explore similar work
Apr 24, 2026cs.CL
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.
Aryan Sharma, Cutter Dawes, Shivam Raval
Jul 20, 2026cs.CL
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}
Abhidip Bhattacharyya, Shira Wein
May 21, 2026cs.CL
We propose a five-stage methodology for causal feature analysis in transformer language models (probe design, feature extraction, causal validation, robustness testing, and deployment integration) and demonstrate it end-to-end on GPT-2 small performing the Indirect Object Identification (IOI) task. Activation patching recovers the canonical IOI circuit (layer-9 head 9 alone gives recovery +1.02). A sparse autoencoder recovers per-name selective features with effect sizes of 30 to 50 activation units. Causal validation finds these features specifically but only partially causal: ablating fifteen of them leaves the model accurate on 98% of prompts. Two NLA-inspired evaluations strengthen this picture: the fifteen selective features explain only 31% of activation variance versus the SAE's 99.7%, and selectivity ratio anticorrelates with causal force (r = -0.56). Robustness testing under three distribution shifts finds that the circuit transfers cleanly but feature ablation effects degrade substantially, exposing a gap between detection robustness and causal robustness. A cost-based deployment evaluation (assumed
50/FN,0.42/FP, 2% error rate) finds an optimal monitor configuration yielding
8.96per1000queriesagainsta1000 baseline, a 99.1% saving. Optimal composition strategy varies with cost ratio and base rate. The conjunction of stages produces findings no single stage would.
Caleb Munigety