Circuit extraction identifies a small set of model components whose presence preserves a target behavior under ablation, and the resulting circuit is often read as the mechanism behind that behavior. We argue that this reading is under-determined: preserving behavior does not single out one circuit, because the claim it supports depends on which circuit is reported and how two circuits are compared. We make this concrete in a synthetic Lean tactic-prediction benchmark -- predicting the next step of a proof -- where fixed proof rules with randomized surface form let differences between extracted circuits be attributed to these choices rather than to the task. Across dense and weight-sparse checkpoints (most weights constrained to zero) of the same transformer, evaluated on atomic (single-rule) and compositional (multi-rule) proofs, we vary which extracted object is reported (a compact prediction-preserving circuit, a broader graph that also keeps surrounding read, write, and routing structure, or the smallest subgraph meeting a post-ablation loss threshold), and whether each attention head's query and key are represented jointly or separately. Exact component-to-component edge overlap is low and sensitive to these choices, at times dropping to a random baseline, while two coarser summaries stay stable: the set of selected attention heads, and the circuit-size ranking of conditions that differ in which supervised checkpoint initializes reinforcement learning (RL). The largest accuracy gains from RL on compositional proofs come with the most structure beyond the atomic circuits. A circuit-level claim is therefore well defined only once one states which circuit is reported, the pruning threshold used to extract it, and the level at which circuits are compared. We distill these requirements into a reporting practice for circuit-extraction studies.
The circuits framework in mechanistic interpretability aims to identify sparse subgraphs of model components that are causally responsible for a behavior, typically evaluated by measuring necessity and sufficiency. But these criteria say little about whether a circuit consistently captures how a model performs a task, or if it is specific to that task. We study these two properties, consistency and specificity, across six tasks and five models, extracting circuits at the component level (attention heads and MLP blocks) and at the level of individual MLP neurons. We find that component-level circuits are highly consistent and causally important on most tasks, but they are not specific: ablating one task's circuit damages another task's performance about as much as that task's own circuit does. Neuron-level circuits, on the other hand, exhibit higher task-specificity but are far less consistent within tasks. This is explained by circuit overlap: component-level circuits share most of their components across all task pairs, related or not, while neuron-level circuits overlap only between closely related tasks. In a case study of the components shared by the task circuits of Llama-3.2-3B, we show that they consist mostly of MLP blocks, while the few attention heads within turn out to be generic attention-sink heads. Overall, our findings raise questions about the degree to which circuits can support targeted understanding of, and intervention on, model behavior.
Finding circuits in language models usually means running many careful interventions. We try something simpler: treat attention as a routing map from one forward pass, keep a small set of routes that point toward the answer, and ask whether those routes actually matter. They often do. On induction and IOI (tasks where the "right" circuit is already known), ablating our extracted edges hurts the model much more than ablating a random set of the same size. We evaluate n=100 prompts per cell on GPT-2 Small, GPT-2 Medium, and Pythia-410M, with paired gap tests and bootstrap confidence intervals. The extract step costs one forward; a head-by-head patch sweep costs about two orders of magnitude more. We are not claiming a complete circuit atlas. We are claiming a cheap sketch that carries real causal signal on known tasks, with clear failure modes when it does not. Code and evaluation artifacts are at https://github.com/Aquinf03/live-circuit-routing.
We present a three-step recipe for identifying attention-head circuits in pretrained transformers. A per-head spectral signal -- the time-integrated participation ratio of each head's attention output -- ranks heads doing sustained content-dependent computation without labels or attribution gradients. A task-pattern screen filters this general indicator into a task-specific candidate circuit, and group ablation against a matched-random control completes the causal claim. We validate across an 8x parameter range (51M to 1B-active / 7B-total), two architecture families (dense, mixture-of-experts), and four pretraining pipelines. The recipe ports: a 2-6 head induction circuit is causally necessary in every model tested, with a 94-100% drop in synthetic-induction top-1 after ablation. The spectral signal is predictive without supervision: on six independent seeds of a 51M-parameter probe model, the same computation identifies the seed-specific circuit on each seed. The fraction of heads doing identifiable specialized computation is conserved at 17-19% across the Pythia family (124M to 410M), while specific induction circuits stay 3-11 heads -- sublinear in total head count. This paper is the methodology anchor of a three-paper program; companion papers extend the recipe to developmental trajectories during pretraining and to composed-task circuits where pattern selectivity decouples from task-causal structure.