cs.CLSep 1, 2026

Lagged Coupling: Internal Representations Become Readable Before They Become Causal

Authors: Xining Xun

Organizations: Tsingjiao Information Science (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

Abstract

Across the full Pythia suite (160M-12B, eight checkpoints, four task families), a linear probe can read a target variable from the residual stream as early as step 1,000 at every scale -- yet steering along that same reading direction remains null-equivalent in 43 of 48 model-checkpoint cells. Internal readability systematically outruns causal efficacy, and the lag does not shrink with scale. We call this structure lagged coupling and decompose it into three dissociable tracks: (i) internal readability, saturated (AUROC >= 0.990) from the first checkpoint everywhere; (ii) behavioral readability, which develops gradually and progressively later at larger scales (12B reaches 0.909 only at the final checkpoint); (iii) causal efficacy, almost always null-equivalent, occasionally counterproductive early, with one isolated positive pulse (12B, step 8,000, z = +2.49) our grid cannot resolve. The ordering is dominantly read-before-write (11/11 units, no inversion). Representation headroom along the probe direction grows up to 57x with training and scale while causal write-in stays below 0.11% of headroom -- the variable is increasingly written into the representation and increasingly ignored by the readout. Under a fully pre-registered protocol, both single-onset hypotheses resolve INDETERMINATE (scale slope +0.24, 95% CI [-0.60, +0.87]; time vote 3:3) -- a disciplined negative explained by the three-track decomposition. A pre-registered OLMo-2 replication preserves the direction at attenuated magnitude. Our results caution against inferring steerability from probe accuracy and establish a developmental bottleneck: representation formation reliably outpaces causal readout consolidation.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 27, 2026cs.LG

When and How Long? The Readout-Mediator Angle in Temporal Reasoning

A linear probe can decode a representation almost perfectly and yet be completely irrelevant to how the model uses it. On calendar-date duration reasoning in language models, a sin⁡\sin/cos⁡\cos probe recovers day-of-year from a layer's activations, yet ablating its direction has no effect on the model's answers -- while ablating a four-dimensional subspace found by Distributed Alignment Search (DAS) at the same layer collapses performance entirely. We measure the angle between these two subspaces -- the \emph{readout-mediator angle} -- and find it indistinguishable from the angle between two random subspaces (the Haar-uniform null), meaning the probe has learned a direction orthogonal to the model's actual computation. Reverse-engineering the circuit reveals why: attention heads route month-grained context through learned QK offsets at ±30{\pm}30 and ±61{\pm}61 days, and MLPs then convert \emph{when} (absolute date) into \emph{how long} (duration) -- all downstream of the causal subspace the probe never touches. Sparse-autoencoder decomposition confirms the split: probe-aligned and DAS-aligned features encode semantically disjoint concepts with negligible causal overlap. The dissociation replicates across four scales (1.51.5-9 9\,B) and two model families, with preliminary evidence on two further domains (spatial displacement, symbolic arithmetic), suggesting that readout-mediator orthogonality is a general failure mode of probe-based interpretability. This directly undermines proposals to deploy probes as runtime safety monitors: the probe can report high confidence on a direction the model has silently abandoned.
Shreyas Fadnavis, Praitayini Kanakaraj, Felix Wyss
ReadoutModel Interpretability Methods
AskPDF
Sep 13, 2026cs.LG

Calibrating Interpretability Instruments Before Trusting Their Verdicts

Causal claims about large language model (LLM) internals rest on measurements. Those might include a projection, a cosine, an ablation delta, or an interchange patch among others. These measurements fail in specific, diagnosable ways that return a plausible number instead of an error, so a broken instrument can easily read as a finding. A covariance-matched null can saturate until every direction looks typical, a per-head attribution can overshoot the true residual write threefold on reordered-normalization architectures, an interchange patch can go sign-chaotic because its outcome is pinned at a ceiling, or a read-from verdict can be an artifact of measuring past the layer where the model already decided. This note documents six such failures from a causal interpretability program on refusal and moral representation, spanning several papers and a four-model open-weight panel; each mode is established on one or two of the four. For each we give the tell that catches it and a protocol keyed to a detectable trigger (reordered normalization, massive activations, a low-dimensional decision channel), so we and readers can check whether a given setup is exposed. The discipline reduces to four moves: calibrate against a positive-control ladder, certify with an orthogonal cell, compute power before spending compute, and state every read-from verdict at a depth referenced to the model's commitment. The evidence is four architectures across three families within a single program; external replication across programs is future work.
Orion Reblitz-Richardson
Topic pending
AskPDF
Jun 28, 2026cs.LG

Do Models Read What They Write? Causal Registers in Scratchpad Reasoning

A central hope behind process supervision is that models can expose intermediate variables that matter for their later behavior. For this to help with alignment, a scratchpad must be tied to the computation: when the model writes a state, later steps should compute from that state. To test this requirement, we use a controlled state-tracking task with a known update rule, comparing models trained to report only the final state with models trained to write intermediate states before giving the final answer. At evaluation, we edit the internal representation of one written state while leaving the visible scratchpad text fixed. Because the transition rule is known, the edit has a single correct downstream consequence. In Qwen2.5-Coder-7B, the state-writing model predicts the next phase bit implied by the edited state on 80% and 91% of held-out examples across the two task variants, while pretrained and final-answer-only controls remain near baseline. Additional controls rule out generic next-token steering and copying another continuation: the prediction depends on both the edited state and the current move. The same causal-use pattern replicates across model families. Together, these results suggest a sharper goal for scratchpad oversight: not just to make intermediate reasoning legible, but to train written states that the model uses as part of its computation.
Benjamin Shih, John Winnicki, Eric Darve
ScratchProcess-Level SupervisionCausal Structure and ReasoningContinuation
AskPDF