Weights Read and Write Features: Scalable Parameter Decomposition Grounded in Activation Space
Authors: Tue M. Cao, Lisiane Pruinelli, My T. Thai
Organizations: Department of Computer and Information Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA · College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
Activation space and parameter space provide complementary views of model computation. Activations represent information, while weights read, transform, and write that information. Yet existing interpretability methods largely study the two spaces separately, leaving the connection between represented information and parameter-level computation underexplored. We introduce Activation-Supported Parameter Decomposition (ASPD), which jointly decomposes activation and parameter spaces and grounds each learned weight component in the activation features it reads or writes. This grounding constrains otherwise non-unique parameter decompositions using the model's internal activations, while an internal reconstruction objective provides a local learning signal at the weight matrix being analyzed. Together, these properties enable scalable, interpretable, and causally editable parameter decomposition in pretrained large language models, demonstrated on Qwen-3-8B. The learned read--write components can also be composed into parameter-level mechanism circuits. We use ASPD to recover mechanisms underlying the classic IOI circuit and trace semantic transformations through model weights.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Parameter-level mechanisms recovered for the IOI circuit ( Wang et al., 2022 ) . ASPD identifies weight components implementing known head-level computations and connects them through read–write interactions across heads. For example, the duplicate-name component 224O of H3.0 and the induction component 228O of H5.5 provide inputs to the downstream S-inhibition mechanism in H8.6.
GPT2
Gemma-2-2b
Qwen-3-8b
Method
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
ASPD (Ours)
0.68 ± 0.04
0.01 ± 0.00
0.62 ± 0.03
0.03 ± 0.00
0.57 ± 0.04
0.03 ± 0.00
PD Transcoder (Ours)
0.54 ± 0.04
0.00 ± 0.00
0.29 ± 0.03
0.10 ± 0.01
0.60 ± 0.04
0.05 ± 0.00
VPD
0.37 ± 0.03
0.01 ± 0.00
0.20 ± 0.02
0.44 ± 0.01
0.22 ± 0.02
0.18 ± 0.00
VPD + internal
0.43 ± 0.03
0.00 ± 0.00
0.25 ± 0.02
0.14 ± 0.00
0.24 ± 0.02
0.24 ± 0.01
Table 1: Interpretability and Diversity experiment results. Interp =0.2 means random chance.
GPT2
Gemma-2-2B
Qwen-3-8b
Method
Matching ↑
Matching ↑
Matching ↑
ASPD (Ours)
1.02 ± 0.14
0.30 ± 0.11
0.61 ± 0.14
PD Transcoder (Ours)
0.94 ± 0.15
0.27 ± 0.17
0.64 ± 0.15
VPD
0.31 ± 0.11
-0.02 ± 0.10
0.17 ± 0.11
VPD + internal
0.45 ± 0.13
0.07 ± 0.12
0.10 ± 0.14
Table 2: Meaning localization experiment results. Matching =0 means random chance.
GPT2
Gemma-2-2b
Qwen-3-8b
Method
ratio↑
localization↑
ratio↑
localization↑
ratio↑
localization↑
Single
ASPD (Ours)
3.1 ± 0.5
0.040 ± 0.005
2.7 ± 0.8
0.013 ± 0.004
6.7 ± 0.9
0.053 ± 0.006
PD Transcoder (Ours)
3.0 ± 0.7
0.049 ± 0.010
4.3 ± 1.1
0.012 ± 0.004
2.5 ± 0.4
0.050 ± 0.005
VPD
0.9 ± 0.2
0.017 ± 0.002
0.5 ± 0.1
0.004 ± 0.001
0.9 ± 0.2
0.020 ± 0.003
VPD + internal
0.3 ± 0.2
0.007 ± 0.004
0.7 ± 0.2
0.006 ± 0.001
1.1 ± 0.2
0.021 ± 0.003
Table 3: Weight Editing Localization experiment results. ratio<1 is poorer than random chance.
Figure 2: Weight editing on the S-inhibition mechanism in H8.6. The left panel shows the original attention pattern. The right panel shows the change after removing the identified QK component pair from the weights. The edit substantially suppresses attention at the S-inhibition position.
Figure 3: Tracing a semantic transformation through the layer-7 MLP. MLPin component 2535, associated with contexts involving NBC, ABC, and Fox, reads news-organization features from the residual stream and interacts strongly with MLPout component 3885, which writes to downstream features associated with broader news-related context.
Table 6: Interpretability and Diversity experiment results of adding or removing Lparam,Lablate .
GPT2
Gemma-2-2b
Qwen-3-8b
Method
ratio↑
localization↑
ratio↑
localization↑
ratio↑
localization↑
Single
PD Transcoder (Ours)
3.0 ± 0.7
0.049 ± 0.010
4.3 ± 1.1
0.012 ± 0.004
2.5 ± 0.4
0.050 ± 0.005
PD Transcoder + param
1.6 ± 0.034
0.046 ± 0.008
2.2 ± 0.7
0.013 ± 0.004
2.6 ± 0.4
0.047 ± 0.006
PD Transcoder + ablate
0.6 ± 0.2
0.016 ± 0.004
2.6 ± 0.6
0.012 ± 0.003
1.0 ± 0.2
0.018 ± 0.003
VPD + internal
0.3 ± 0.2
0.007 ± 0.004
0.7 ± 0.2
0.006 ± 0.001
1.1 ± 0.2
0.021 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table 7: Weight Editing Localization experiment results of adding or removing Lparam,Lablate .
GPT2
Gemma-2-2B
Qwen-3-8b
Method
Matching ↑
Matching ↑
Matching ↑
PD Transcoder (Ours)
0.94 ± 0.15
0.27 ± 0.17
0.64 ± 0.15
PD Transcoder + param
1.14 ± 0.14
0.17 ± 0.15
0.22 ± 0.15
PD Transcoder + ablate
0.33 ± 0.16
-0.01 ± 0.14
0.12 ± 0.14
VPD + internal
0.45 ± 0.13
0.07 ± 0.12
0.10 ± 0.14
VPD + internal + no param
0.72 ± 0.14
-0.06 ± 0.14
0.20 ± 0.16
Appendix
Table 8: Meaning Localization results of adding or removing Lparam,Lablate .
GPT2
Gemma-2-2b
Qwen-3-8b
Method
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
ASPD (Ours)
0.68 ± 0.04
0.01 ± 0.00
0.62 ± 0.03
0.03 ± 0.00
0.57 ± 0.04
0.03 ± 0.00
PD Transcoder (Ours)
0.54 ± 0.04
0.00 ± 0.00
0.29 ± 0.03
0.07 ± 0.01
0.60 ± 0.04
0.05 ± 0.00
VPD + ( gt,c>0.01 )
0.41 ± 0.03
0.00 ± 0.00
0.22 ± 0.02
0.46 ± 0.01
0.24 ± 0.02
0.19 ± 0.02
VPD + internal + ( gt,c>0.01 )
0.36 ± 0.03
0.00 ± 0.00
0.32 ± 0.03
0.08 ± 0.01
0.26 ± 0.02
0.13 ± 0.02
VPD + ( gt,c>0.1 )
0.53 ± 0.03
0.00 ± 0.00
0.22 ± 0.02
0.46 ± 0.01
0.26 ± 0.02
0.22 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 9: Interpretability and Diversity experiment results of filtering gt,c>τ .
GPT2
Gemma-2-2b
Qwen-3-8b
Method
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
Interp ↑
Sim ↓
VPD with adaptive L0
0.34 ± 0.03
0.00 ± 0.00
0.21 ± 0.02
0.24 ± 0.00
0.20 ± 0.02
0.34 ± 0.01
VPD without adaptive L0
0.37 ± 0.03
0.01 ± 0.00
0.20 ± 0.02
0.44 ± 0.01
0.22 ± 0.02
0.18 ± 0.00
Appendix
Table 10: Interpretability and Diversity experiment results comparing VPD with and without adaptive sparisty loss.
GPT2
Gemma-2-2b
Qwen-3-8b
Method
ratio↑
localization↑
ratio↑
localization↑
ratio↑
localization↑
Single
VPD with adaptive L0
0.2 ± 0.1
0.004 ± 0.002
0.6 ± 0.1
0.005 ± 0.001
0.9 ± 0.2
0.020 ± 0.003
VPD without adaptive L0
0.9 ± 0.2
0.020 ± 0.002
0.5 ± 0.1
0.004 ± 0.001
0.9 ± 0.2
0.020 ± 0.003
Multiple
VPD with adaptive L0
0.2 ± 0.0
0.003 ± 0.000
0.4 ± 0.0
0.004 ± 0.000
0.8 ± 0.0
0.017 ± 0.001
Appendix
Table 11: Weight Editing Localization experiment results comparing VPD with and without adaptive sparisty loss.
GPT2
Gemma-2-2B
Qwen-3-8b
Method
Matching ↑
Matching ↑
Matching ↑
VPD with adaptive L0
0.18 ± 0.10
-0.02 ± 0.12
0.05 ± 0.14
VPD without adaptive L0
0.31 ± 0.11
-0.02 ± 0.10
0.17 ± 0.11
Appendix
Table 12: Meaning localization experiment results comparing VPD with and without adaptive sparisty loss.
Figure 4: QK circuit at position Q:9(John)−K:3(John) of H3.0 (“duplicate token head”). We observed that components 1178QK (“John”) contribute strongly to the attention pattern, and ablating those components suppresses the “duplicate token” attention pattern.
Figure 5: OV circuit of H3.0 (“duplicate token head”). The components 1178V (“John”) and 224O (“duplicate name”) have a strong causal effect on each other. The component 224O writes the “duplicate token” signal to the activation space, which is the main role of H3.0 .
Figure 6: QK circuit at position Q:4(went)−K:3(John) of H4.11 (“previous token head”). We observed that components 12QK,70QK (dense components), 5740Q,440Q (“follow a name”), 341K (“name”) contribute strongly to the attention pattern, and ablating those components suppresses the “previous token” attention pattern.
Figure 7: OV circuit of H4.11 (“previous token head”). The components 341V (“names”), 2774V (“John”) have a strong causal effect on 5690O (“follow a name”), 5608O (“follow names like John, James, Joan, etc.”). The components 5690O,5608O write the “follow a name (John)” signal to the activation space, which is the main role of H4.11 .
Figure 8: Connection between H4.11 (“previous token head”) and 5.5 (“induction head”). Component 5690OH4.11 (“tokens followed a name”), which is the component that writes the main functionality of H4.11 to the activation space, contributes strongly to the component 5897VH5.5 (“tokens followed a name”).
Figure 9: QK circuit at position Q:9(John)−K:4(went) of H5.5 (“induction head”). We observed that components 164Q (“names”), 5897K (“token followed a name”) contribute strongly to the attention pattern and ablating those components suppress the “induction” attention pattern.
Figure 10: OV circuit of H5.5 (“induction head”). The components 4897V (“tokens followed a name”) have a strong causal effect on 228O,665O,7290O (“name induction”). The components 228O,665O,7290O write the “induction” signal to the activation space, which is the main role of H5.5 .
Figure 11: Connection between H3.0 (“duplicate token head”), 5.5 (“induction head”) and H8.6 (“S-inhibition head”). Components 224OH3.0 (“duplicate name”) and 228OH5.5 (“name induction”), which are the components that write the main functionality of H3.0 and H5.5 to the activation space, contribute strongly to the component 2861V,101VH8.6 (“fire on pronouns, names - but fire on second names/pronouns stronger ”).
Figure 12: QK circuit at position Q:13(to)−K:9(John) of H8.6 (“S-inhibition head”). We observed that components 14Q (“preposition”), 101K (“fire on pronouns, names - but fire on second names/pronouns stronger ”) contribute strongly to the attention pattern, and ablating those components suppresses the “S-inhibition” attention pattern.
Figure 13: OV circuit of H8.6 (“S-inhibition head”). The components 2861V,101V (“fire on pronouns, names - but fire on second names/pronouns stronger ”) have a strong causal effect with 223O (“suppress certain names”), 919O (“promote female pronouns”), 6080O (“next token is a name”), 260O (“promote male pronouns”). The components 223O,919O,6080O,260O suppress/promote “male/female pronouns ” and write the information to the activation space, which is the main role of H8.6 .
Figure 14: Connection between H8.6 (“S-inhibition head”) and H9.6 (“name mover head”). Components 223OH8.6 (“suppress a certain names”), 260OH8.6 (“promote male pronouns”), 6080OH8.6 (“next token is a name”), which are the components that write the main functionality of H8.6 to the activation space, contribute strongly to the component 122QH9.6 (“contexts around a certain names”) and 254QH9.6 (“preposition, verbs connected to a person”).
Figure 15: QK circuit at position Q:13(to)−K:1(Mary) of H9.6 (“name mover head”). We observed that components 254Q (“prepositions, verbs connected to a person”), 122Q (“contexts around a certain name”), 293K (“names”) contribute strongly to the attention pattern, and ablating those components suppresses the “name mover” attention pattern.
Figure 16: OV circuit of H9.6 (“name mover head”). The components 740V (“female, woman”) have a strong causal effect on 3796O (“predict next token is a woman/female name”), 17O (“predict next token is a male name”). The components 3796O,17O promote “male/female pronouns ” and write the information to the activation space, which is the main role of H9.6 .
Figure 17: Connection between H8.6 (“S-inhibition head”) and H11.10 (“negative name mover head”). Components 223OH8.6 (“suppress certain names”), 260OH8.6 (“promote male pronouns”), 6080OH8.6 (“next token is a name”), which are the components that write the main functionality of H8.6 to the activation space, contribute strongly to the components 238Q,48Q,263QH11.10 (“prepositions, verbs”).
Figure 18: QK circuit at position Q:13(to)−K:1(Mary) of H11.10 (“negative name mover head”). We observed that components 238Q,48Q,263Q (“preposition, verbs”), 267K (“names”) contribute strongly to the attention pattern, and ablating those components suppresses the “negative name mover” attention pattern.
Figure 19: OV circuit of H11.10 (“negative name mover head”). The components 1323V (“female pronouns”), 267V (“names”) have a strong causal effect on 60O (“suppressing female pronouns”), 3278O (“predict John”), 30O (“predict male names”). The components 60O,3278O,30O promote/suppress “male/female names/pronouns” and write the information to the activation space, which is the main role of H11.10 .
Figure 20: The image shows the component 5342Q (“tech, car, airplane companies”) at layer 9 reads the features 1964,13889,19129 of residual-stream-pre which activate on “tech, car companies” context. 5342Q interacts with components 1518K that fires on “device and tech-related” and read the related features 18090,2403,2823 from the residual-stream-pre, forming attention pattern.
Figure 21: The image shows the component 5306V (“hack, hacking”) at layer 5 reads the feature 16372 of residual-stream-pre which activates on “hack” context. 5306V interacts with components 1454O that fires on “release, disclose” and write out news related features 31334 at the output of the attention module.
Mechanistic interpretability aims to uncover how neural networks use their parameters to implement their impressive neural algorithms. Although previous work has uncovered substantial structure in the intermediate representations that networks use, little progress has been made to understand how the parameters and nonlinearities of networks perform computations on those representations. In this work, we present a method that brings us closer to this understanding by decomposing a language model's parameters into subcomponents that each implement only a small part of the model's learned algorithm, while simultaneously requiring only a small fraction of those subcomponents to account for the network's behavior on any input. The method, adVersarial Parameter Decomposition (VPD), optimizes for decompositions of neural network parameters into simple subcomponents that preserve the network's input-output behavior even when many subcomponents are ablated, including under ablations that are adversarially selected to destroy behavior. This encourages learning subcomponents that provide short, mechanistically faithful descriptions of the network's behavior that should aggregate appropriately into more global descriptions of the network's learned algorithm. We study how sequences of interactions between these parameter subcomponents produce the network's output on particular inputs, enabling a new kind of 'circuit' analysis. While more work remains to be done to deepen our understanding of how neural networks use their parameters to compute their behavior, our work suggests an approach to identify a small set of simple, mechanistically faithful subcomponents on which further mechanistic analysis can be based.
Lucius Bushnaq, Dan Braun, Oliver Clive-Griffin +5
Understanding the internal representations of large language models (LLMs) is a central challenge in interpretability research. Existing feature interpretability methods often rely on strong structural assumptions--such as linearity or sparsity--that may not hold in practice. In this work, we introduce InverseScope, an assumption-light and scalable framework for interpreting neural activations via input inversion. Given a target activation, InverseScope characterizes its encoded information by generating natural-language inputs that produce nearby activations, grounding abstract internal states in concrete language. To overcome the prohibitive cost of sampling in high-dimensional activation spaces, we propose a novel control-layer conditioning architecture that substantially improves sample efficiency compared to prior token-prepending approaches. We demonstrate that InverseScope reveals rich geometric structure in LLM representation spaces, including sentence-level linear analogies. The framework scales to state-of-the-art open-source models of up to 14B parameters and generalizes to out-of-distribution inputs, enabling systematic analysis of activation neighborhoods.
Yifan Luo, Zhennan Zhou, Bin Dong
School of Mathematical Science, Peking University, Beijing, China · School of Science, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China · Beijing International Center for Mathematical Research and the New Cornerstone Science Laboratory, Peking University, Beijing, China +1
Dense pretrained transformers do not naturally expose interpretable units for circuit extraction. Existing approaches obtain such units by learning auxiliary sparse representations or training sparse models, incurring substantial additional computation while potentially introducing a fidelity gap between the representation being analyzed and the original pretrained model. We propose Sparse Weight Decomposition (SWD), which reparameterizes pretrained linear projections by factorizing each weight matrix into two sparse factors whose shared intermediate coordinates serve as individually addressable circuit units. Without training a separate replacement network, this parametric representation supports the same scoring, selection, and ablation circuit extraction workflow used for methods that learn sparse features. Across single-matrix replacements, SWD matches the held-out fidelity achieved by Transcoder and other strong baselines while using less than 1% of the data that those baselines use to train their replacements. For matched replacement fidelity, SWD reaches the same circuit sufficiency and necessity targets with fewer active read/write edges and selected units across tasks on GPT-2, Qwen2.5, and Qwen3.5-27B. We further show that SWD remains effective for full-model replacement of all attention and MLP weight matrices after fine-tuning the nonzero factor values. Finally, SWD also features a zero-data variant, allowing broader use of mechanistic interpretability analysis (e.g., per-step analysis).
Chuanhao Yan, Xuhan Huang, Yawen Duan +4
IQuest Research · Safe AI Forum · University of Oxford +2