LLM Interpretability

The individuation problem for large language models asks which entities associated with them, if any, should be identified as minds. We approach this problem through mechanistic interpretability, engaging in particular with recent empirical work on persona vectors, persona space, and emergent misalignment. We argue that three views are the strongest candidates: the virtual instance view and two new views we introduce, the (virtual) instance-persona view and the model-persona view. First, we argue for the virtual instance view on the grounds that attention streams sustain quasi-psychological connections across token-time. Then we present the persona literature, organised around three hypotheses about the internal structure underlying personas in LLMs, and show that the two persona-based views are promising alternatives.

Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) are comprised of billions of parameters arranged in deep and wide computational graphs, but it is not clear that they exploit their full capacity for all inputs. We introduce the s-Trace method to efficiently estimate a subgraph of size s that approximates a full model output. With this method, we find the computation in a variety of LLMs to be organized in two distinct phases. A small subgraph mostly composed of early-layer nodes can reconstruct the head of the full model output distribution. Adding further nodes, mostly located in later layers and increasingly consisting of attention heads, leads to incremental refinements in approximating the full output distribution. We find moreover that the amount of necessary computation per input correlates with model uncertainty, and that sparser subgraphs encode shallow statistics, such as unigram frequency. Overall, our results suggest a consistent modular organization in effective LLM computation, with a sparse early-layer core providing a rough prediction that is further refined through denser computations in later layers.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process. We introduce ReasoningFlow, a framework that captures the discourse structures of LRM reasoning traces into fine-grained directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). We develop and validate our annotation schema through careful manual annotation of 31 traces (2.1k steps), achieving high inter-annotator agreement, then scale to automatic annotation of 1,260 traces (247.7k steps) spanning three tasks (math, science, argumentation) and five models (Qwen2.5-32B-Inst, QwQ-32B, DeepSeek-V3, DeepSeek-R1, GPT-oss-120B). By analyzing ReasoningFlow graphs, we find: (1) LRMs exhibit structurally similar traces, despite being trained from different base models and potentially non-overlapping post-training data. (2) ReasoningFlow reveals diverse fine-grained reasoning behaviors (e.g., local verification, self-reflection, and assumptions) that can be used for better reasoning trace monitorability. (3) In LRMs, most of the erroneous steps are not used to derive final answers. (4) Mechanistic causal dependencies between steps do not reflect the language-level discourse structure. We release the dataset and code in: https://github.com/jinulee-v/reasoningflow.

Although Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have mitigated the opacity of large language models (LLMs) by decomposing dense representations into sparse features, explaining these features still remains a central challenge. Current explanation methods, however, typically operate within an open-loop paradigm, failing to leverage mechanistic feedback for further refinement. In this paper, we propose SAEExplainer, a training framework that utilizes activation scores as an objective reward signal to train the model for self-correction and iterative bootstrapping. By iteratively verifying and correcting foundational explanations through a two-round optimization process, SAEExplainer achieves continuous improvement in its explanatory capabilities. This mechanism significantly reduces explanation hallucinations and reinforces causal triggering patterns. Extensive experiments demonstrate our approach improves upon established baselines across most metrics, especially in causal triggering and discriminative activation. The code is available at https://github.com/he-jingyi/SAEExplainer.

To interpret context correctly and retrieve relevant information, large language models must bind entities to their attributes and update these bindings as state changes. We analyze how LLMs implement this binding process in a dynamic state tracking. Using causal interventions, we identify a retrieval conditioned rebinding mechanism, a compact attention head circuit that propagated binding information and when the entity is queried, uses the updated binding to retrieve the corresponding attribute. Across Gemma and Llama models, this circuit supports rebinding behavior, but the representational signature of the mechanism differs across model families. In Gemma models, the binding signature is clearly expressed in the query/key subspaces of the relevant attention heads, whereas in Llama models, the binding information is carried primarily in key vectors. Overall, our results reveal an interpretable mechanism for context dependent state tracking in LLMs.

Psycholinguistics studies show that human readers fall for coherence illusions: an incoherent discourse can seem coherent simply because a distractor matches what comes next. We investigate whether Dutch language models (6 monolingual and 4 multilingual) show the same behavior on texts that link back to earlier context with words such as 'again' and 'too'. First, we find that surprisal at the critical word tracks human acceptability judgments and eye-tracking data. Models are more surprised by incoherent continuations, but a matching distractor in the prior context reduces this surprisal. Second, attention entropy identifies heads that behave differently under coherence vs. incoherence. We find that ablating these heads shows transfer effects across experiments, suggesting a shared mechanism. Third, we introduce energy from the associative-memory literature as a metric to quantify discourse coherence. Taken together, our results show that coherence illusions arise in Dutch LLMs, with entropy and energy exposing mechanisms that operate across settings.