Circuit localization is a mechanistic interpretability task whose goal is to identify a sparse subgraph of a transformer's computation graph sufficient to reproduce a particular behavior. Most established methods localize circuits independently for each model--task pair. We instead frame circuit localization as a graph machine learning problem in which the edges of a computation graph represent computational pathways, and graph neural networks (GNNs) model interactions among these pathways. We introduce Graph Circuit Learning (GCL), a supervised, amortized framework that trains a GNN across multiple model--task pairs and applies it to unseen cases. To provide sufficient data, we augment the InterpBench benchmark with additional cases derived from the TracrBench programs. Of the 14 evaluated GCL configurations, the highest scored a median edge AUROC of 0.902 (interquartile interval [0.861,0.942]) on the 16 original held-out InterpBench cases. This is close to the published InterpBench median of 0.910 for EAP-IG while remaining below ACDC's 0.959. Removing all message-passing edges reduces the median to 0.825. We also adapt PGExplainer, a GNN explainability method, to circuit localization, obtaining a median edge AUROC of 0.858 on the same cases. These preliminary results suggest that graph machine learning offers a natural and potentially powerful perspective on circuit localization, and we hope this perspective encourages closer exchange between the two communities.
Mechanistic interpretability seeks to explain a model's behaviour by finding its circuit: the sparse subgraph of the model's computation that is causally responsible for it. Automated methods have made this search systematic, but each one starts afresh for every behaviour, and the effort spent finding one circuit does nothing for the next. Circuit discovery has thus been automated, but not amortised. We ask whether circuit discovery can itself be learned. We frame it as a sequential decision problem over the computation graph of GPT-2 small, in which a policy removes edges until it reaches a compact subgraph that preserves the behaviour, guided by a faithfulness reward defined through causal intervention. A single policy trained across twelve behaviours recovers a faithful circuit for each, and once frozen it transfers to behaviours it never saw during training, recovering their known circuits without further search. A short warm-start improves these transferred circuits, returning far smaller ones than training from scratch. While the learned policy does not match a per-behaviour search on circuit size or cost, it shows that circuit discovery is a learnable, transferable procedure rather than a search repeated for every behaviour.
Mechanistic interpretability defines features as the fundamental units of a neural network and circuits as the weighted subgraphs that carry out its computation. Because individual neurons are polysemantic, Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) were introduced as a way to approximate a model's circuits by generating an attribution graph. The nodes of that graph, however, are unlabeled features: reading a graph means pruning it and then working out by hand what each surviving node means. To make CLTs easier to use for circuit discovery, we introduce Circuit-Diff, which intervenes on the model itself with a low-rank factual edit and takes the features whose role in the attribution graph changes under that edit as related to the edited knowledge. On the edits we examine, the flagged nodes are not only detectors of the object token: read off the CLT's released feature dashboards, they include features for the history, geography and associations surrounding the old and new objects. We formalize the method, measure how reliable a frozen CLT remains after a factual edit, test the selected nodes causally by patching them on up to 24 CounterFact edits, give a case study, and release an open-source implementation built on the circuit-tracer package, together with two further tools (multi-prompt aggregation and rule-based supernode labeling).
Mechanistic interpretability aims to reverse-engineer transformer computations by identifying causal circuits through activation patching. However, scaling these interventions across diverse prompts and task families produces high-dimensional, unstructured datasets that are difficult to compare systematically. We propose a framework that reframes mechanistic analysis as a graph machine-learning problem by representing activation-patching profiles as patch-effect graphs over model components. We introduce three graph-construction methods: direct-influence via causal mediation, partial-correlation, and co-influence and apply graph kernels to analyze the resulting structures. Evaluating this approach on GPT-2 Small using Indirect Object Identification (IOI) and related tasks, we find that patch-effect graphs preserve discriminative structural signals. Specifically, localized edge-slot features provide higher classification accuracy than global graph-shape descriptors. A screened paired-patching validation suggests that CI and PC selected candidate edges correspond to stronger activation-influence effects than random or low-rank candidates. Crucially, by evaluating these representations against rigorous prompt-only and raw patch-effect controls, we make the evidential scope of the benchmark explicit: graph features compress structured patching signal, while raw tensors and surface cues define strong baselines that any circuit-level claim should address. Ultimately, our framework provides a compression and evaluation pipeline for comparing patching-derived structures under controlled baselines, separating robust slice-discriminative evidence from stronger task-general causal-circuit claims.