Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchCercetare AI

analiza aiqbench

This is a careful mechanistic interpretability study of code LLMs' tendency to default to Python. Its main contribution is methodological: whether a behaviour looks localised to a small set of components depended heavily on the circuit-search budget, the probe prompts, and the significance testing, so localisation claims in this area need their analysis choices reported and varied. Readers building or auditing interpretability pipelines should take the released grid as a reproducibility resource more than as a settled answer about where the behaviour lives.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

Causal Syntax Circuits in CodeLMs: Budget and Probe Decide What Looks Localised

arXiv4 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2610.20683v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code models write Python when the prompt does not say which language to use. We ask a mechanistic question about that habit: is it produced by a small, findable group of components inside the model? We run one pipeline---mean ablation, activation patching, greedy circuit extraction, a random-control significance test, and activation steering---over 55 model-language settings spanning ten open code models (five base and five instruction-tuned), three target languages (Rust, C#, PHP), two prompt suites, and two component budgets. We report five findings. First, the preference is large, grows with model size, and survives instruction tuning: it is larger on every instruction-tuned checkpoint than on its base version, by 12% on average. Second, its measured size is mostly a property of the probe; replacing our aligned prompts with XLCoST parallel functions takes the same measurement on the same models from about 1.6 to about 0.01. Third, whether the preference looks localised depends on how many components the search may keep: with a budget of 12, 1 of 15 settings yields a circuit that beats size-matched random controls after multiple-comparison correction, and with a budget of 40, 6 of 15 do. Fourth, interventions that a smaller-budget study reports as uniformly failing do sometimes succeed: patching makes a Python prompt prefer target syntax in 2 of 45 settings, and steering changes the most likely next token in 9 of 45. Fifth, every circuit whose effect is significant but points away from the target language comes from a setting where circuit extraction failed, which makes such results a diagnostic rather than a phenomenon. The practical lesson is that a claim about whether a behaviour is localised can turn on analysis choices that papers rarely report. We release the full grid so those choices can be varied.

Abstract:Code models write Python when the prompt does not say which language to use. We ask a mechanistic question about that habit: is it produced by a small, findable group of components inside the model? We run one pipeline---mean ablation, activation patching, greedy circuit extraction, a random-control significance test, and activation steering---over 55 model-language settings spanning ten open code models (five base and five instruction-tuned), three target languages (Rust, C#, PHP), two prompt suites, and two component budgets. We report five findings. First, the preference is large, grows with model size, and survives instruction tuning: it is larger on every instruction-tuned checkpoint than on its base version, by 12% on average. Second, its measured size is mostly a property of the probe; replacing our aligned prompts with XLCoST parallel functions takes the same measurement on the same models from about 1.6 to about 0.01. Third, whether the preference looks localised depends on how many components the search may keep: with a budget of 12, 1 of 15 settings yields a circuit that beats size-matched random controls after multiple-comparison correction, and with a budget of 40, 6 of 15 do. Fourth, interventions that a smaller-budget study reports as uniformly failing do sometimes succeed: patching makes a Python prompt prefer target syntax in 2 of 45 settings, and steering changes the most likely next token in 9 of 45. Fifth, every circuit whose effect is significant but points away from the target language comes from a setting where circuit extraction failed, which makes such results a diagnostic rather than a phenomenon. The practical lesson is that a claim about whether a behaviour is localised can turn on analysis choices that papers rarely report. We release the full grid so those choices can be varied.

Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Linguistic Principles for Foundation Models (LP4FM). All four authors contributed equally

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

arXiv:2610.20683 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.20683v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.20683 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.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 407 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe