Effective Does Not Mean Useful: Conditional Functional Substitutability for Redundancy and Scaling in Transformers

A central question in modern machine learning is how much a trained model can be compressed without changing its behavior, to reduce the memory, compute and energy required to deploy it. To study this, we quantify functional degeneracy through the behavioral recovery rank, defined as the number of leading behavioral-Hessian eigendirections required to recover a trained model's performance. Using the behavioral recovery rank as a geometric benchmark for compression, we find that structural and magnitude pruning retain more degrees of freedom, even after the task is saturated. This gap suggests that functional redundancy is distributed across parameter directions and is not exposed by individual weights or neurons.

Mechanistic interpretability seeks to explain transformer behavior through circuits: sets of internal components that causally support a behavior. However, self-repair creates a blind spot: ablating a primary component can activate a dormant backup, so a circuit that explains behavior in the intact model can become incomplete under the intervention used to test it. We formulate this gap as conditional circuit completion: given a primary set, identify components that become causally important after its removal. We introduce conditional co-ablation (CoAx), which ranks candidates by growth in ablation effect after primary-set removal. We show that a perfectly dormant backup can be indistinguishable from an irrelevant component to per-unit intact-state scores, whereas its conditional effect change exactly aggregates all interaction orders linking it to the removed set. On GPT-2-small's Indirect Object Identification (IOI) circuit, CoAx recovers the documented backup heads at 0.941 ROC-AUC, versus 0.815 for the strongest intact-state attribution baseline and 0.758 for the matched conditional-energy control. Recovery drops to 0.40 +/- 0.13 AUC for alternative component sets matched in behavioral effect, output displacement, and depth, showing that recovery is specific to the removed circuit. Beyond recovery, the CoAx-selected heads are causally load-bearing: freezing them after primary removal sharply reduces the IOI margin, while adding them to the incomplete circuit reduces incompleteness from 0.75 to 0.21. More broadly, conditional growth aligns with intervention-derived repair in 11/12 held-out instances across 4 mechanism clusters, and CoAx completions outperform matched random completions on all 8 non-GPT-2 models spanning 6 architecture families. Together, causal explanations of self-repairing transformers must account for backup circuitry when primary components fail.

When researchers ask whether two transformer layers are "equivalent" for compression, they often conflate distinct tests. Replacement asks whether one layer's map can substitute for another's in place; interchange asks whether two layers approximately commute when their positions are swapped. Both are output-grounded swap-KL probes, but they need not agree: on pretrained transformers the protocol gap can change which layers look safe to prune by several-fold under the same evaluator, especially when replacement distances are high. We measure both protocols across checkpoints and architectures. On a Pythia training trajectory (410M and 1.4B), the replacement-interchange gap grows from initialization to convergence. Under one matched WikiText-2 contract at 8B scale, Qwen3-8B enters a divergent regime: interchange-guided removal is several-fold safer than replacement-guided at the same layer budgets, while Llama-3.1-8B ties the two protocols for pruning cost even though interchange KL is lower, showing metric gaps need not map one-to-one to removal. Before layer removal or merging, score both swap-KLs on the target checkpoint; the diagnostic requires only unlabeled forward passes.