Representational Simplicity and Circuit Size Dissociate in a Threshold-Dependent Way: A Controlled Test via Adversarial Training

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 for most tasks, but they are not specific: for a given task, ablating its own circuit drops accuracy by about as much as ablating another task's circuit. Neuron-level circuits, on the other hand, exhibit higher specificity across tasks, but far less consistency within tasks. This is explained by circuit overlap: component-level circuits share most of their components across tasks, 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 have general-purpose roles. Overall, our findings raise questions about the degree to which circuits can support targeted understanding of, and intervention on, model behavior.

Mechanistic interpretability assumes that circuit analysis becomes harder as models scale. We challenge this assumption by showing that the attention architecture matters more than parameter count. Studying three circuit types across Pythia and Qwen2.5, we find that grouped query attention produces circuits that are far more concentrated and mechanistically stable than standard multi-head attention at comparable scales. The same concentration pattern holds across indirect object identification, induction heads, and factual recall. Within a single architecture family (Qwen2.5), factual recall circuits undergo a discrete phase transition above a critical scale, collapsing to a single bottleneck rather than degrading gradually. These findings suggest that some architectural choices make large models more tractable to study and that interpretability difficulty is not a fixed consequence of model size.

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are the standard for decomposing superposed neural representations into interpretable features, and evaluation relies predominantly on correlational recovery metrics -- cosine similarity between ground-truth directions and decoder atoms. We show this conflates two distinct claims: decoder-geometry alignment and encoder-activation behavior. We reproduce the superposition phase diagram of Elhage et al. (2022), identifying a convergence artifact at high sparsity and an under-described diffuse sharing regime at extreme overcompleteness. We reproduce the TopK-versus-L1 comparison of Gao et al. (2024), with direct evidence of L1 shrinkage. Our central result is causal: subjecting every recovered feature to ablation and steering, we find up to 77% of features passing a recovery bar (cosine >= 0.90) in a degraded SAE -- and 9% in a well-trained one -- are causally inert: the matched atom never fires when the feature is present, including matches at cosine ~1.000. We package the method as sae-causal-audit, a model-agnostic instrument with a deterministic pipeline. Re-auditing refines the finding: inertness decomposes by cause into structural inertness (antipodal-pair geometry, present in good SAEs) and competitive inertness (a TopK pathology of degraded SAEs), and by direction into read- and write-inertness, which five antipodal pairs dissociate completely -- unmonitorable yet steerable through the same atom, with steering specificities of 143-310 attached to zero ablation effects. We document why byte-exact reproducibility is unavailable by construction, and propose reporting it as a stack of claims with explicit scopes. Applying the instrument to a production SAE reproduces the pattern at small scale (14% inert) and surfaces an atom-collision signal: a handful of atoms recur as the nearest match for dozens of unrelated concepts, replicated across three batches.