Function-Vector Heads Are Two Populations: Writers and Cancellers in In-Context Learning

Function vectors (FVs) are task representations elicited during in-context learning that can be used to steer Large Language Models (LLMs). However, design choices in their formulation remain underexplored. In this work, we study the impact of varying FV definitions for instructions along two degrees of freedom: attention head selection and steering. For head selection, using gradient-based attributions with Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) substantially improves efficiency as well as accuracy. For FV steering, applying it in a distributed manner yields a higher accuracy compared to simple aggregation. Our code is publicly available.

In-context learning (ICL) excels at new tasks from minimal examples, yet we still lack a mechanistic explanation of how few-shot prompts shape a model's function vector (FV)--a causal activation direction that drives task behavior on the ICL query. Across tasks and models, an $n$-shot FV is well-approximated by a linear combination of example-level sub-FVs, suggesting additive and composable contributions from individual demonstrations. Beyond additivity, we show that models contextualize individual examples' representations based on prior examples to adaptively reweight which demonstrations dominate the FV: attention shifts toward examples that are more informative and less ambiguous under the context. Finally, a causal decomposition separates Query-Key routing from Value updates, finding that contextualization's most consistent contributions to FV quality arise from Query-Key alignment--particularly in ambiguous settings--while Value-mediated effects are more heterogeneous. Together, these results unify additive superposition with context-dependent attention reweighting into a mechanistic, testable account of how few-shot prompts implement tasks.

Activation patching and weight-space ablation both claim a component is causally responsible for a behavior, yet they act on different objects: one forward pass versus the parameters behind every forward pass. We ask when they agree. We study an idealized model where a conditional computation is carried additively through a residual stream, $F(x)=F_0(x)+\sum_iα_i(x)v_i$, read out by a linear functional, and prove three exact results. First, deleting a subset of carriers collapses a matched input pair onto the same unconditional output \emph{if and only if} the removal is symmetric on the pair and leaves no outside contrast; the error is deterministic, and we give its exact form even when the two conditions hold only approximately. Second, patching a carrier moves the readout by its donor-receiver \emph{contrast}, while ablating it moves the readout by its \emph{absolute level}; neither bounds the other, and we construct pairs where every single-carrier patch flips the decision while no single-carrier ablation does. Third, for an attention head composed with its own layer's normalization and MLP, we derive an exact first-order interaction formula with a provably second-order remainder, vanishing identically when only the MLP is ablated but not, in general, when a head is. Small transformers trained on a synthetic conditional task illustrate all three predictions: across thirty-nine ablation configurations the measured interaction is strongly rank-correlated with the idealized model's predictive accuracy (Spearman $-0.83$), and a second task and architecture reproduces the same pattern, including a further polarity reversal. The single-block interaction result extends past one residual block, and the synthetic validation is tested against a real pretrained model, in a companion paper that takes this theory further along both axes.