LLM Interpretability

One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task -- which we dub lexical task heads -- and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable fluency and versatility across a wide range of NLP tasks, yet they remain prone to factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. This limitation poses significant risks in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, law, and scientific communication, where trust and verifiability are paramount. In this paper, we introduce DAVinCI - a Dual Attribution and Verification framework designed to enhance the factual reliability and interpretability of LLM outputs. DAVinCI operates in two stages: (i) it attributes generated claims to internal model components and external sources; (ii) it verifies each claim using entailment-based reasoning and confidence calibration. We evaluate DAVinCI across multiple datasets, including FEVER and CLIMATE-FEVER, and compare its performance against standard verification-only baselines. Our results show that DAVinCI significantly improves classification accuracy, attribution precision, recall, and F1-score by 5-20%. Through an extensive ablation study, we isolate the contributions of evidence span selection, recalibration thresholds, and retrieval quality. We also release a modular DAVinCI implementation that can be integrated into existing LLM pipelines. By bridging attribution and verification, DAVinCI offers a scalable path to auditable, trustworthy AI systems. This work contributes to the growing effort to make LLMs not only powerful but also accountable.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) fine-tuned on serialized tabular data are emerging as powerful alternatives to traditional tree-based models, particularly for heterogeneous or context-rich datasets. However, their deployment in high-stakes domains is hindered by a lack of faithful interpretability; existing methods often rely on global linear proxies or scalar probability shifts that fail to capture the model's full probabilistic uncertainty. In this work, we introduce TabSHAP, a model-agnostic interpretability framework designed to directly attribute local query decision logic in LLM-based tabular classifiers. By adapting a Shapley-style sampled-coalition estimator with Jensen-Shannon divergence between full-input and masked-input class distributions, TabSHAP quantifies the distributional impact of each feature rather than simple prediction flips. To align with tabular semantics, we mask at the level of serialized key:value fields (atomic in the prompt string), not individual subword tokens. Experimental validation on the Adult Income and Heart Disease benchmarks demonstrates that TabSHAP isolates critical diagnostic features, achieving significantly higher faithfulness than random baselines and XGBoost proxies. We further run a distance-metric ablation on the same test instances and TabSHAP settings: attributions are recomputed with KL or L1 replacing JSD in the similarity step (results cached per metric), and we compare deletion faithfulness across all three.

Effective safety auditing of large language models (LLMs) demands tools that go beyond black-box probing and systematically uncover vulnerabilities rooted in model internals. We present a comprehensive, interpretability-driven jailbreaking audit of eight SOTA open-source LLMs: Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.3-70B-4bt, GPT-oss- 20B, GPT-oss-120B, Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-32B, Phi4-3.8B, and Phi4-14B. Leveraging interpretability-based approaches -- Universal Steering (US) and Representation Engineering (RepE) -- we introduce an adaptive two-stage grid search algorithm to identify optimal activation-steering coefficients for unsafe behavioral concepts. Our evaluation, conducted on a curated set of harmful queries and a standardized LLM-based judging protocol, reveals stark contrasts in model robustness. The Llama-3 models are highly vulnerable, with up to 91% (US) and 83% (RepE) jailbroken responses on Llama-3.3-70B-4bt, while GPT-oss-120B remains robust to attacks via both interpretability approaches. Qwen and Phi models show mixed results, with the smaller Qwen3-0.6B and Phi4-3.8B mostly exhibiting lower jailbreaking rates, while their larger counterparts are more susceptible. Our results establish interpretability-based steering as a powerful tool for systematic safety audits, but also highlight its dual-use risks and the need for better internal defenses in LLM deployment.

Activation steering can shift LLM behaviour, but standard evaluations do not typically test whether a sycophancy-reduction direction also suppresses agreement with factually correct statements. We introduce dual-stance evaluation, which tests both stances of each topic, and apply it to centroid-difference steering on Llama-3-8B-Instruct. We find a dissociation: the model represents sycophantic and factual agreement in geometrically distinct subspaces, yet the steering direction projects equally onto both and cannot differentially target either. The direction accordingly reduces agreement with factually correct statements (e.g. that the Earth is round) as well as sycophantic ones. All other static properties of the two activation groups are matched, suggesting the behavioural dissociation arises from generation dynamics or from finer-grained structure that residual-stream analysis cannot resolve. The pattern illustrates a general gap: representations that are readable from activations may not be writable through them.

Currently, Large Language Models (LLMs) feature a diversified architectural landscape, including traditional Transformer, GateDeltaNet, and Mamba. However, the evolutionary laws of hierarchical representations, task knowledge formation positions, and network robustness bottleneck mechanisms in various LLM architectures remain unclear, posing core challenges for hybrid architecture design and model optimization. This paper proposes LayerTracer, an architecture-agnostic end-to-end analysis framework compatible with any LLM architecture. By extracting hidden states layer-by-layer and mapping them to vocabulary probability distributions, it achieves joint analysis of task particle localization and layer vulnerability quantification. We define the task particle as the key layer where the target token probability first rises significantly, representing the model's task execution starting point, and the vulnerable layer is defined as the layer with the maximum Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence between output distributions before and after mask perturbation, reflecting its sensitivity to disturbances. Experiments on models of different parameter scales show that task particles mainly appear in the deep layers of the model regardless of parameter size, while larger-parameter models exhibit stronger hierarchical robustness. LayerTracer provides a scientific basis for layer division, module ratio, and gating switching of hybrid architectures, effectively optimizing model performance. It accurately locates task-effective layers and stability bottlenecks, offering universal support for LLM structure design and interpretability research.

Large language models (LLMs), trained on vast datasets, encode extensive real-world knowledge within their parameters, yet their black-box nature obscures the mechanisms and extent of this encoding. Surrogate modeling, which uses simplified models to approximate complex systems, can offer a path toward better interpretability of black-box models. We propose a surrogate modeling framework that quantitatively explains LLM-encoded knowledge. For a specific hypothesis derived from domain knowledge, this framework approximates the latent LLM knowledge space using observable elements (input-output pairs) through extensive prompting across a comprehensive range of simulated scenarios. Through proof-of-concept experiments in medical predictions, we demonstrate our framework's effectiveness in revealing the extent to which LLMs "perceive" each input variable in relation to the output. Particularly, given concerns that LLMs may perpetuate inaccuracies and societal biases embedded in their training data, our experiments using this framework quantitatively revealed both associations that contradict established medical knowledge and the persistence of scientifically refuted racial assumptions within LLM-encoded knowledge. By disclosing these issues, our framework can act as a red-flag indicator to support the safe and reliable application of these models.

Function calling empowers large language models (LLMs) to interface with external tools, yet existing RL-based approaches suffer from misalignment between reasoning processes and tool-call decisions. We propose R2IF, a reasoning-aware RL framework for interpretable function calling, adopting a composite reward integrating format/correctness constraints, Chain-of-Thought Effectiveness Reward (CER), and Specification-Modification-Value (SMV) reward, optimized via GRPO. Experiments on BFCL/ACEBench show R2IF outperforms baselines by up to 34.62% (Llama3.2-3B on BFCL) with positive Average CoT Effectiveness (0.05 for Llama3.2-3B), enhancing both function-calling accuracy and interpretability for reliable tool-augmented LLM deployment.

Large language models can be uncertain yet correct, or confident yet wrong, raising the question of whether their output-level uncertainty and their actual correctness are driven by the same internal mechanisms or by distinct feature populations. We introduce a 2x2 framework that partitions model predictions along correctness and confidence axes, and uses sparse autoencoders to identify features associated with each dimension independently. Applying this to Llama-3.1-8B and Gemma-2-9B, we identify three feature populations that play fundamentally different functional roles. Pure uncertainty features are functionally essential: suppressing them severely degrades accuracy. Pure incorrectness features are functionally inert: despite showing statistically significant activation differences between correct and incorrect predictions, the majority produce near-zero change in accuracy when suppressed. Confounded features that encode both signals are detrimental to output quality, and targeted suppression of them yields a 1.1% accuracy improvement and a 75% entropy reduction, with effects transferring across the ARC-Challenge and RACE benchmarks. The feature categories are also informationally distinct: the activations of just 3 confounded features from a single mid-network layer predict model correctness (AUROC ~0.79), enabling selective abstention that raises accuracy from 62% to 81% at 53% coverage. The results demonstrate that uncertainty and correctness are distinct internal phenomena, with implications for interpretability and targeted inference-time intervention.

Thinking LLMs produce reasoning traces before answering. Prior activation steering work mainly targets on shaping these traces. It remains less understood how answer tokens actually read and integrate the reasoning to produce reliable outcomes. Focusing on quantitative reasoning, we analyze the answer-to-reasoning attention and observe a benign self-reading pattern aligned with correctness, characterized by a forward drift of the reading focus along the reasoning trace and a persistent concentration on key semantic anchors, whereas incorrect solutions exhibit diffuse and irregular attention pattern. We interpret this as internal certainty during answer decoding, where the model commits to a viable solution branch and integrates key evidence. Following this, we propose a training-free steering method driven by Self-Reading Quality (SRQ) scores combining geometric metrics for process control with semantic metrics for content monitoring. SRQ selects data to build steering vectors that guide inference toward benign self-reading and away from uncertain and disorganized reading. Experiments show that our method yields consistent accuracy gains.

Understanding a discourse requires tracking entities and the relations that hold between them. While Large Language Models (LLMs) perform well on relational reasoning, the mechanism by which they bind entities, relations, and attributes remains unclear. We study discourse-level relational binding and show that LLMs encode it via a Cell-based Binding Representation (CBR): a low-dimensional linear subspace in which each ``cell'' corresponds to an entity--relation index pair, and bound attributes are retrieved from the corresponding cell during inference. Using controlled multi-sentence data annotated with entity and relation indices, we identify the CBR subspace by decoding these indices from attribute-token activations with Partial Least Squares regression. Across domains and two model families, the indices are linearly decodable and form a grid-like geometry in the projected space. We further find that context-specific CBR representations are related by translation vectors in activation space, enabling cross-context transfer. Finally, activation patching shows that manipulating this subspace systematically changes relational predictions and that perturbing it disrupts performance, providing causal evidence that LLMs rely on CBR for relational binding.

Aligned language models refuse harmful instructions, but the representations through which they recognise such instructions are less well characterised than the behaviours they produce. Harmful intent is linearly separable from residual-stream activations across 12 models spanning four architectural families (Qwen2.5, Qwen3.5, Llama-3.2, Gemma-3) and three alignment variants (base, instruction-tuned, abliterated), with parameter scales from 0.5B to 1.3B and a within-family scale extension to 9B on Qwen3.5. A direction fitted from 100 labelled examples per class via Soft-AUC optimisation reaches mean effective AUROC 0.982 and TPR@1%FPR 0.797, generalises to three held-out harm benchmarks and a hard-benign control, and matches its instruction-tuned counterpart within $\pm 0.003$ AUROC in abliterated variants from which the refusal mechanism has been removed. The supervised strategies all exceed AUROC 0.96, but their TPR@1%FPR varies by more than ten times the AUROC gap; a deployed 9B safety classifier shows the same pattern at AUROC 0.94 and TPR 0.30, motivating low-FPR reporting as a default in safety-adjacent detection evaluation. Geometric measurements refine the picture. The recovered direction is concentrated within each extraction protocol but protocol-dependent across them: two pooling choices applied to the same chat-templated activations at the same residual-stream layer (max-pool over content tokens versus last-token at the post-instruction position) recover harm directions $73^\circ$ apart, and projecting one out leaves detection under either max-pool extraction essentially intact. Probing identifies a protocol-specific direction rather than a unique computational feature.

Open-weight language models can be rendered unsafe through several distinct interventions, but the resulting models may differ substantially in capabilities, behavioral profile, and internal failure mode. We study behavioral and mechanistic properties of jailbroken models across three unsafe routes: harmful supervised fine-tuning (SFT), harmful reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and refusal-suppressing abliteration. All three routes achieve near-ceiling harmful compliance, but they diverge once we move beyond direct harmfulness. RLVR-jailbroken models show minimal degradation and preserve explicit harm recognition in a structured self-audit: they are able to identify harmful prompts and describe how a safe LLM should respond, yet they comply with the harmful request. With RLVR, harmful behavior is strongly suppressed by a reflective safety scaffold: when a harmful prompt is prepended with an instruction to reflect on safety standards, harmful behavior drops close to the baseline. Category-specific RLVR jailbreaks generalize broadly across harmfulness domains. Models jailbroken with SFT show the largest collapse in explicit safety judgments, the highest behavioral drift, and a substantial capability loss on standard benchmarks. Abliteration is family-dependent in both self-audit and response to a reflective safety scaffold. Mechanistic and repair analyses further separate the routes: abliteration is consistent with localized refusal-feature deletion, RLVR with preserved safety geometry but retargeted policy behavior, and SFT with broader distributed drift. Targeted repair partially recovers RLVR-jailbroken models, but has little effect on SFT-jailbroken models. Together, these results show that jailbreaks can produce vastly different properties despite similar harmfulness, with models jailbroken via RLVR showing remarkable similarity to the base model.

Prompt sensitivity, which refers to how strongly the output of a large language model (LLM) depends on the exact wording of its input prompt, raises concerns among users about the LLM's stability and reliability. In this work, we consider LLMs as multivariate functions and perform a first-order Taylor expansion, thereby analyzing the relationship between meaning-preserving prompts, their gradients, and the log probabilities of the model's next token. We derive an upper bound on the difference between log probabilities using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. We show that LLMs do not internally cluster similar inputs like smaller neural networks do, but instead disperse them. This dispersing behavior leads to an excessively high upper bound on the difference of log probabilities between two meaning-preserving prompts, making it difficult to effectively reduce to 0. In our analysis, we also show which types of meaning-preserving prompt variants are more likely to introduce prompt sensitivity risks in LLMs. In addition, we demonstrate that the upper bound is strongly correlated with an existing prompt sensitivity metric, PromptSensiScore. Moreover, by analyzing the logit variance, we find that prompt templates typically exert a greater influence on logits than the questions themselves. Overall, our results provide a general interpretation for why current LLMs can be highly sensitive to prompts with the same meaning, offering crucial evidence for understanding the prompt sensitivity of LLMs. Code for experiments is available at https://github.com/ku-nlp/Understanding_the_Prompt_Sensitivity.

Language models often solve complex tasks by generating long reasoning chains, consisting of many steps with varying importance. While some steps are crucial for generating the final answer, others are removable. Determining which steps matter most, and why, remains an open question central to understanding how models process reasoning. We investigate if this question is best approached through model internals or through tokens of the reasoning chain itself. We find that model activations contain more information than tokens for identifying important reasoning steps. Crucially, by training probes on model activations to predict importance, we show that models encode an internal representation of step importance, even prior to the generation of subsequent steps. The internal representations of importance in different models yield high agreement on which steps are important. The representation is distributed across layers, and does not correlate with surface-level features, such as a step's relative position or its length. Our findings suggest that analyzing activations can reveal aspects of reasoning that surface-level approaches fundamentally miss, indicating that reasoning analyses should look into model internals.

Static concreteness ratings are widely used in NLP, yet a word's concreteness can shift with context, especially in figurative language such as metaphor, where common concrete nouns can take abstract interpretations. While such shifts are evident from context, it remains unclear how LLMs understand concreteness internally. We conduct a layer-wise and geometric analysis of LLM hidden representations across four model families, examining how models distinguish literal vs figurative uses of the same noun and how concreteness is organized in representation space. We find that LLMs separate literal and figurative usage in early layers, and that mid-to-late layers compress concreteness into a one-dimensional direction that is consistent across models. Finally, we show that this geometric structure is practically useful: a single concreteness direction supports efficient figurative-language classification and enables training-free steering of generation toward more literal or more figurative rewrites.

An LLM's residual stream is both state and instruction: it encodes the current context and determines the next transformation. We introduce a parameter-free decomposition for Mixture-of-Experts models that splits each layer's hidden state into a control signal that causally drives routing and an orthogonal content channel invisible to the router. Across six MoE architectures, we find that models preserve surface-level features (language, token identity, position) in the content channel, while the control signal encodes an abstract function that rotates from layer to layer. Because each routing decision is low-bandwidth, this hand-off forces compositional specialization across layers. While individual experts remain polysemantic, expert paths become monosemantic, clustering tokens by semantic function across languages and surface forms. The same token (e.g., ":") follows distinct trajectories depending on whether it serves as a type annotation, an introductory colon, or a time separator. Our decomposition identifies the source of this structure: clusters in the control subspace are substantially more monosemantic than those in the full representation. As a result, the natural unit of interpretability in MoEs is not the expert but the trajectory.

Interpretability tools are increasingly used to analyze failures of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet prior work largely focuses on short prompts or toy settings, leaving their behavior on commonly used benchmarks underexplored. To address this gap, we study contrastive, LRP-based attribution as a practical tool for analyzing LLM failures in realistic settings. We formulate failure analysis as contrastive attribution, attributing the logit difference between an incorrect output token and a correct alternative to input tokens and internal model states, and introduce an efficient extension that enables construction of cross-layer attribution graphs for long-context inputs. Using this framework, we conduct a systematic empirical study across benchmarks, comparing attribution patterns across datasets, model sizes, and training checkpoints. Our results show that this token-level contrastive attribution can yield informative signals in some failure cases, but is not universally applicable, highlighting both its utility and its limitations for realistic LLM failure analysis. Our code is available at: https://aka.ms/Debug-XAI.

We provide evidence that language models can detect, localize and, to a degree, verbalize the difference between a-semantic perturbations applied to their activations. More precisely, we either (a) apply dropout or (b) add Gaussian noise to them, at a target sentence. We then ask a multiple-choice question such as "Which of the previous sentences was perturbed?" or "Which perturbation was applied?". We test eight models from the Gemma, Llama, Mistral, Olmo, Qwen and Seed families, with sizes between 8B and 36B, all of which can easily detect and localize the perturbations, often with perfect accuracy. To investigate the mechanisms, we find that Olmo models develop this capacity during pre-training, and we rule out the hypothesis that perturbed sentences simply have lower log-likelihood. Notably, the zero-shot accuracy of Qwen3-32B and Qwen3.8-27B in identifying which perturbation was applied correlates with the perturbation strength. While this task proves hard for the remaining models, most of them can learn, when taught in context, to distinguish between dropout and Gaussian noise. Interestingly, Qwen3-32B and Qwen3.8-27B learn worse when supervised with wrong labels, again suggesting a prior towards the correct ones. Because dropout is used as a training-regularization technique, while Gaussian noise is sometimes added during inference, we discuss the possibility of a data-agnostic "training awareness" signal and the implications for AI safety.

Accurate comprehension and controllable generation of emotion and rhetoric are pivotal for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Existing studies mostly rely on external optimizations, lacking in-depth exploration of internal representation mechanisms, thus failing to achieve fine-grained steering at the neuron level. A handful of works on neurons are confined to emotions, neglecting rhetoric neurons and their intrinsic connections. Traditional neuron masking also exhibits counterintuitive phenomena, making reliable verification of neuron functionality infeasible. To address these issues, we systematically investigate the neurons representation mechanisms and inherent associations of 6 emotion categories and 4 core rhetorical devices. We propose a neuron identification framework that integrates multi-dimensional screening, and design an adaptive masking method incorporating dynamic filtering, attenuation masking, and feedback optimization, enabling reliable causal validation of neuron functionality.Through neuron regulation, we achieve directed induction of non-target sentences and enhancement of emotion tasks via rhetoric neurons. Experiments on 5 commonly used datasets validate the effectiveness of our method, providing a novel paradigm for the fine-grained steering of emotion and rhetoric expressions in LLMs.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to solve complex tasks, yet a reasoning trace may merely accompany the final answer rather than causally contribute to it or faithfully reflect how it was reached. We introduce differentiable attention manipulation to train salient reasoning with reinforcement learning -- method which we call AtManRL. By optimizing an additive attention mask that identifies the CoT tokens needed to recover the model's answer, we derive a saliency reward and combine it with an outcome reward in GRPO with decoupled advantages. Because both saliency and faithfulness depend strongly on trace length, we evaluate against a sweep of length-penalty baselines that traces the trade-off a pure length penalty can reach, rather than against a single baseline. Across three models (Qwen2.5-3B, Granite-3.3-2B, and Phi-4-mini) and four benchmarks (GSM8K, MMLU, ProofWriter, and QuestBench), AtManRL sits above this trade-off curve by 3.9-4.0pp in saliency, measured as answer changes under mistake injection, and by 5.7-7.7pp in faithfulness, measured as hint verbalization under hint injection, while matching the accuracy of baselines of similar length. These results suggest that training explicitly for saliency is a promising route towards chain-of-thought reasoning that is more faithful to the model's actual decision process.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance across many NLP tasks, their opaque internal mechanisms hinder trustworthiness and safe deployment. Existing surveys in explainable AI largely focus on post-hoc explanation methods that interpret trained models through external approximations. In contrast, intrinsic interpretability, which builds transparency directly into model architectures and computations, has recently emerged as a promising alternative. This paper presents a systematic review of the recent advances in intrinsic interpretability for LLMs, categorizing existing approaches into five design paradigms: functional transparency, concept alignment, representational decomposability, explicit modularization, and latent sparsity induction. We further discuss open challenges and outline future research directions in this emerging field. The paper list is available at: https://github.com/PKU-PILLAR-Group/Survey-Intrinsic-Interpretability-of-LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities, yet their internal mechanisms for handling reasoning-intensive tasks remain underexplored. To advance the understanding of model-internal processing mechanisms, we present an investigation of how LLMs perform arithmetic operations by examining internal mechanisms during task execution. Using early decoding, we trace how next-token predictions are constructed across layers. Our experiments reveal that while the models recognize arithmetic tasks early, correct result generation occurs only in the final layers. Notably, models proficient in arithmetic exhibit a clear division of labor between attention and MLP modules, where attention propagates input information and MLP modules aggregate it. This division is absent in less proficient models. Furthermore, successful models appear to process more challenging arithmetic tasks functionally, suggesting reasoning capabilities beyond factual recall.

This position paper argues that large language model (LLM) reasoning should be studied as latent-state trajectory formation rather than as faithful surface chain-of-thought (CoT). This matters because claims about faithfulness, interpretability, reasoning benchmarks, and inference-time intervention all depend on what the field takes the primary object of reasoning to be. We ask what that object should be once three often-confounded factors are separated and formalize three competing hypotheses: H1, reasoning is primarily mediated by latent-state trajectories; H2, reasoning is primarily mediated by explicit surface CoT; and H0, most apparent reasoning gains are better explained by generic serial compute than by any privileged representational object. Reorganizing recent empirical, mechanistic, and survey work under this framework, and adding compute-audited worked exemplars that factorize surface traces, latent interventions, and matched budget expansions, we find that current evidence most strongly supports H1 as a default working hypothesis rather than as a task-independent verdict. We therefore make two recommendations: the field should treat latent-state dynamics as the default object of study for LLM reasoning, and it should evaluate reasoning with designs that explicitly disentangle surface traces, latent states, and serial compute.

Existing research on large language models (LLMs) for automated code compliance has primarily focused on performance, treating the models as black boxes and overlooking how training decisions affect their interpretive behavior. This paper addresses this gap by employing a perturbation-based attribution analysis to compare the interpretive behaviors of LLMs across different fine-tuning strategies such as full fine-tuning (FFT), low-rank adaptation (LoRA) and quantized LoRA fine-tuning, as well as the impact of model scales which include varying LLM parameter sizes. Our results show that FFT produces attribution patterns that are statistically different and more focused than those from parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. Furthermore, we found that as model scale increases, LLMs develop specific interpretive strategies such as prioritizing numerical constraints and rule identifiers in the building text, albeit with performance gains in semantic similarity of the generated and reference computer-processable rules plateauing for models larger than 7B. This paper provides crucial insights into the explainability of these models, taking a step toward building more transparent LLMs for critical, regulation-based tasks in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry.

LLMbench is a browser-based workbench for the comparative close reading of large language model (LLM) outputs. Where existing tools for LLM comparison, such as Google PAIR's LLM Comparator are engineered for quantitative evaluation and user-rating metrics, LLMbench is oriented towards the hermeneutic practices of the digital humanities. Two model responses to the same prompt are side by side in annotatable panels with four analytical overlays (Probabilities for token-level log-probability inspection, Differences for word-level diff across the two panels, Tone for Hyland-style metadiscourse analysis, and Structure for sentence-level parsing with discourse connective highlighting), alongside five analytical modes, Stochastic Variation, Temperature Gradient, Prompt Sensitivity, Token Probabilities, and Cross-Model Divergence, that make the probabilistic structure of generated text legible at the token level. The tool treats the generated text as a research object in its own right from a probability distribution, a text that could have been otherwise, and provides visualisations including continuous heatmaps, entropy sparklines, pixel maps, and three-dimensional probability terrains, that show the counterfactual history from which each word emerged. This paper describes the tool's architecture, its six modes, and its design rationale, and argues that log-probability data, currently underused in humanistic and social-scientific readings of AI, is an important resource for a critical studies of generative AI models.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate increasingly sophisticated affective capabilities, the internal mechanisms by which they process complex emotions remain unclear. Existing interpretability approaches often treat models as black boxes or focus on coarse-grained basic emotions, leaving the cognitive structure of more complex affective states underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose a Cognitive Reverse-Engineering framework based on Representation Engineering (RepE) to analyze social-comparison jealousy. By combining appraisal theory with subspace orthogonalization, regression-based weighting, and bidirectional causal steering, we isolate and quantify two psychological antecedents of jealousy, Superiority of Comparison Person and Domain Self-Definitional Relevance, and examine their causal effects on model judgments. Experiments on eight LLMs from the Llama, Qwen, and Gemma families suggest that models natively encode jealousy as a structured linear combination of these constituent factors. Their internal representations are broadly consistent with the human psychological construct, treating Superiority as the foundational trigger and Relevance as the ultimate intensity multiplier. Our framework also demonstrates that toxic emotional states can be mechanically detected and surgically suppressed, suggesting a possible route toward representational monitoring and intervention for AI safety in multi-agent environments.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance and have revolutionized NLP, but their lack of explainability keeps them treated as black boxes, limiting their use in domains that demand transparency and trust. A promising direction to address this issue is post-hoc text-based explanations, which aim to explain model decisions in natural language. Prior work has focused on generating convincing rationales that appear to be subjectively faithful, but it remains unclear whether these explanations are epistemically faithful, whether they reflect the internal evidence the model actually relied on for its decision. In this paper, we first assess the epistemic faithfulness of LLM-generated explanations via counterfactuals and show that they are often unfaithful. We then introduce a training-free method that enhances faithfulness by guiding explanation generation through attention-level interventions, informed by token-level heatmaps extracted via a faithful attribution method. This method significantly improves epistemic faithfulness across multiple models, benchmarks, and prompts.