aiqbench analysis
This study offers a mechanistic breakdown of how large language models resolve pronoun ambiguity, identifying three coexisting causal subspaces—group entity binding, recency bias, and stereotypical bias—that collectively explain model behavior with up to 99.5% accuracy. By mapping these mechanisms onto specific attention routes within the network depth, researchers move beyond behavioral observations to reveal the internal competition driving coherent generation versus failure modes in complex referential tasks.
A Mechanistic Understanding of Pronoun Fidelity in LLMs
arXiv:2606.16407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Faithful and robust pronoun use is important for fair and coherent generations, yet large language models largely fail when multiple referents use different pronouns. To study the interplay of reasoning, repetition, and bias in this task, prior work relies exclusively on behavioural approaches, which may not reflect a model's internal workings. Therefore, we provide a mechanistic, model-internal perspective on pronoun fidelity, testing whether three mechanisms -- group entity binding (G), recency bias (R), and stereotypical bias (S) -- are causally implemented across several SOTA language models. Using Boundless Distributed Alignment Search, we find all three coexist as causal subspaces distributed across network depth. No single mechanism fully explains model behaviour, but a combination of the three consistently accounts for 91-99.5%. An attention head analysis further reveals two competing copying routes; group binding and stereotype share a localized concept-level route that retrieves a bound occupation-pronoun unit, while recency uses a distributed token-level route that repeats surface forms. In sum, pronoun fidelity arises from competition between simultaneously active causal subspaces.
Abstract:Faithful and robust pronoun use is important for fair and coherent generations, yet large language models largely fail when multiple referents use different pronouns. To study the interplay of reasoning, repetition, and bias in this task, prior work relies exclusively on behavioural approaches, which may not reflect a model's internal workings. Therefore, we provide a mechanistic, model-internal perspective on pronoun fidelity, testing whether three mechanisms -- group entity binding (G), recency bias (R), and stereotypical bias (S) -- are causally implemented across several SOTA language models. Using Boundless Distributed Alignment Search, we find all three coexist as causal subspaces distributed across network depth. No single mechanism fully explains model behaviour, but a combination of the three consistently accounts for 91-99.5%. An attention head analysis further reveals two competing copying routes; group binding and stereotype share a localized concept-level route that retrieves a bound occupation-pronoun unit, while recency uses a distributed token-level route that repeats surface forms. In sum, pronoun fidelity arises from competition between simultaneously active causal subspaces.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2606.16407 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.16407v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.16407 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 266 words
Related coverage

The SaaSpocalypse that wasn’t, with Atlassian CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes
The Verge · Sep 28, 2026
Mechanistic Interpretability of Structure-Aware Numerical Reasoning in LLaMA 3.1 8B
arXiv · Aug 21, 2026

AI Futures: Racing to Lose, A sermon
LessWrong · Sep 28, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026