REVIEW 3 cited by
Towards a Mechanistic Interpretation of Multi-Step Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Towards a Mechanistic Interpretation of Multi-Step Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models
read the original abstract
Recent work has shown that language models (LMs) have strong multi-step (i.e., procedural) reasoning capabilities. However, it is unclear whether LMs perform these tasks by cheating with answers memorized from pretraining corpus, or, via a multi-step reasoning mechanism. In this paper, we try to answer this question by exploring a mechanistic interpretation of LMs for multi-step reasoning tasks. Concretely, we hypothesize that the LM implicitly embeds a reasoning tree resembling the correct reasoning process within it. We test this hypothesis by introducing a new probing approach (called MechanisticProbe) that recovers the reasoning tree from the model's attention patterns. We use our probe to analyze two LMs: GPT-2 on a synthetic task (k-th smallest element), and LLaMA on two simple language-based reasoning tasks (ProofWriter & AI2 Reasoning Challenge). We show that MechanisticProbe is able to detect the information of the reasoning tree from the model's attentions for most examples, suggesting that the LM indeed is going through a process of multi-step reasoning within its architecture in many cases.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Reading and Steering Representations of Materials-Science Mechanisms in an Open-Weight Language Model
Materials-science mechanisms are readable and steerable in a Gemma LLM through matched state changes, while absolute hidden-state graphs fail to uniquely encode physical polarity.
-
Base Models Know How to Reason, Thinking Models Learn When
A hybrid model that steers base LLM activations with vectors fitted to thinking-model traces recovers part of the performance gap, but the conclusion that thinking models only learn 'when' is not established by the ex...
-
Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey
A survey organizing implicit (silent) reasoning in LLMs into three execution paradigms, plus evidence, benchmarks, and challenges.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.