Coreference resolution is an important task in contextual reasoning. In this paper, we investigate the mechanism for representing and retrieving singular and plural entities for plural reference. We use a combination of mechanistic interpretability and attention pattern analysis to study the process in which LLMs predict a pronoun to refer back to previously mentioned entities. Using a range of causal intervention techniques, we find a set of attention heads that are responsible for (1) representing coreference information in the input, (2) identifying entities that form a plural reference, (3) transferring the information to the component that is responsible for selecting the antecedents and predicting the pronoun. We also find that LLMs align with humans in preference for plural pronoun. Specifically, entities in a plural construction are more likely to be referred to as a plural entity if they are ontologically similar and are linked by the conjunction "and".
Faithful and robust pronoun use is important for fair and coherent generations, yet large language models largely fail when multiple referents use different pronouns. To study the interplay of reasoning, repetition, and bias in this task, prior work relies exclusively on behavioural approaches, which may not reflect a model's internal workings. Therefore, we provide a mechanistic, model-internal perspective on pronoun fidelity, testing whether three mechanisms -- group entity binding (G), recency bias (R), and stereotypical bias (S) -- are causally implemented across several SOTA language models. Using Boundless Distributed Alignment Search, we find all three coexist as causal subspaces distributed across network depth. No single mechanism fully explains model behaviour, but a combination of the three consistently accounts for 91-99.5%. An attention head analysis further reveals two competing copying routes; group binding and stereotype share a localized concept-level route that retrieves a bound occupation-pronoun unit, while recency uses a distributed token-level route that repeats surface forms. In sum, pronoun fidelity arises from competition between simultaneously active causal subspaces.
Katharina Trinley, Jesujoba O. Alabi, Dietrich Klakow +1
Language models must bind entities to the attributes they possess and maintain several such binding relationships within a context. We study how multiple entities are represented across token positions and whether single tokens can carry bindings for more than one entity. We introduce a multi-slot probing approach that disentangles a single token's residual stream activation to recover information about both the currently described entity and the immediately preceding one. These two kinds of information are encoded in separate and largely orthogonal "current-entity" and "prior-entity" slots. We analyze the functional roles of these slots and find that they serve different purposes. In tandem with the current-entity slot, the prior-entity slot supports relational inferences, such as entity-level induction ("who came after Alice in the story?") and conflict detection between adjacent entities. However, only the current-entity slot is used for explicit factual retrieval questions ("Is anyone in the story tall?" "What is the tall entity's name?") despite these answers being linearly decodable from the prior-entity slot too. Consistent with this limitation, open-weight models perform near chance accuracy at processing syntax that forces two subject-verb-object bindings on a single token (e.g., "Alice prepares and Bob consumes food.") Interestingly, recent frontier models can parse this properly, suggesting they may have developed more sophisticated binding strategies. Overall, our results expose a gap between information that is available in activations and information the model actually uses, and suggest that the current/prior-entity slot structure is a natural substrate for behaviors that require holding two perspectives at once, such as sycophancy and deception.
Do neural models, such as Large Language Models, genuinely acquire compositional abilities for interpretation of natural language? When we talk about semantic interpretation, we can distinguish two complementary aspects: establishing what an expression refers to in the world (which we call the Extensional task) and representing its sense in a structured way (which we call the Intensional task). We evaluate LLMs and humans on both tasks in the setting of the Personal Relation Task (Paperno 2022) in which, given a universe of people and their relationships with each other, one is asked to interpret a noun phrase such as "Amber's parent's friend". Here, for the Intensional task, the answer is the formula "friend(parent(amber))", and for the Extensional task, the person. We find that humans and LLMs show opposite strengths: humans perform better on Extensional than Intensional tasks, and LLMs vice versa. Our methodology brings greater nuance to the understanding of compositional abilities in modern machine learning models. Our results support the notion that the lack of referential grounding in LLM training is a crucial missing component in mimicking human-like language understanding.