Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Time Course MechInterp: Analyzing the Evolution of Components and Knowledge in Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read As OLMo-7B trains, factual recall shifts from broad, general-purpose attention heads to specialized ones; attention heads keep changing roles while feed-forward layers stay stable, and location facts are learned before name facts.

desk verdict First time-course role map of a 7B model's factual recall circuitry, with a clean LOC-before-NAME result—but the high-turnover 'repurposing' claim needs a null model before it is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03434 v1 pith:PG4VPONI submitted 2025-06-03 cs.CL

Ahmad Dawar Hakimi , Ali Modarressi , Philipp Wicke , Hinrich Schütze This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords mechanisticinterpretabilityfactualrecalltrainingdynamicsattentionheadsfeed-forwardnetworkscircuitanalysisinformationflowroutesOLMo-7B
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show how factual knowledge takes shape inside a large language model while it is still training, by watching which internal components drive each answer at 40 successive checkpoints of OLMo-7B. The central claim is a general-to-specialized progression: early training leans on broad, multipurpose attention heads, and only later do specialized heads emerge for specific relations and facts, at which point some previously active components are repurposed, a sign the authors read as adaptive learning. The evidence also separates the two component types: attention heads show the highest role turnover, while feed-forward layers behave like a stable backbone that mostly sticks to general processing. A separate behavioral result is that location-based facts reach high accuracy earlier and with less volatility than name-based facts. If the picture holds, it gives a time-resolved mechanistic account of knowledge formation that could guide when and how to edit, prune, or fine-tune a model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are Information Flow Routes (IFRs), a method that walks the model's computational graph backward from the token being predicted and keeps only the edges whose modified ALTI (Aggregation of Layer-Wise Token-to-Token Interactions) contribution exceeds a threshold, and a five-way role taxonomy built on which token positions a component serves. A component is 'general' if it fires across all subtokens, 'entity' if it fires on subject and answer, 'relation-answer' if it fires on the answer for all facts of one relation, and 'fact-answer' if it fires on the answer for a single fact; 'proper' variants subtract the broader roles, and everything below threshold counts as 'deactivated'. Stability is quantified by Intersection-over-Union comparisons of each role's component set against the fully trained model, and role changes are modeled as a Markov chain over snapshots. This combination is what makes a 40-snapshot, 7-billion-parameter study feasible: the IFR extractor is cheap enough to run at every checkpoint, and the taxonomy converts raw circuit membership into a trackable claim about specialization over time.

What would settle it

Run activation patching or causal tracing on a small set of snapshots (for example S5, S14, and the final model) on these same 160 facts: if the heads that IFR labels as answer-specific are not the ones whose intervention most changes the predicted answer, the role-classification timeline collapses. A cheaper check is to examine the raw distribution of IFR scores per snapshot: if the number of heads crossing the 0.10 threshold rises simply because the whole score distribution inflates as training proceeds, then per-snapshot rescaling of the thresholds should erase the observed growth in specialized heads.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By tracing Information Flow Routes through OLMo-7B's 40 training snapshots and classifying every attention head and feed-forward layer into one of five roles (general, entity, relation-answer, fact-answer, deactivated), the paper claims that factual knowledge is assembled gradually rather than appearing all at once. The number of active attention heads grows from 113 to 423 across training, the sets of specialized heads keep turning over (answer-specific heads have an Intersection-over-Union of only 0.2 between the final model and the checkpoint just before it), and heads frequently pass through deactivated states; yet the total count of specialized heads rises because new specializations form faster than old ones dissolve. Feed-forward layers, by contrast, mostly remain general throughout, with a detectable shift into relation-answer roles around the point where accuracy passes 80%. The authors also find that location-based relations cross a top-1 accuracy of 0.8 by snapshot S5, whereas name-based relations only reach that level at S14, and that name-based relations recruit more heads and more role switching in the middle layers. They interpret the combined pattern as a hierarchical learning process in which stable general components build the groundwork and dynamic attention heads adapt to refine answers.

Load-bearing premise

The timeline of specialization rests on the assumption that the Information Flow Route scores faithfully identify the components that actually cause each prediction, so the fixed thresholds that assign roles are separating real functional changes from noise in the attribution scores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Factual-recall circuits keep reorganizing late into training, so the components behind a given answer at one checkpoint are not the components behind it a few hundred billion tokens later.
  • Attention heads are the adaptable part of the system: answer-specific heads repurpose most often, so head-level analyses of a single checkpoint are time-stamped statements, not permanent properties of the model.
  • Feed-forward layers stay mostly general, which marks them as the steadier substrate for knowledge-related interventions such as editing or pruning.
  • Task complexity shows up in acquisition order: location-based facts converge earlier and more stably than name-based facts, and the harder name-based relations engage more heads and more role switching in the stable middle layers.
  • Most heads never take part in factual recall: around 60% stay deactivated even in the fully trained model, and the Markov analysis gives a deactivated-to-deactivated transition probability of 0.96.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the observed head turnover is genuine functional plasticity, then single-checkpoint circuit maps may be systematically misleading; averaging circuits across a training stage could give a more stable target for downstream interpretability work.
  • The authors' own caveat that a high threshold and coarse module granularity could make FFNs look general suggests a refinement: repeating the role classification at neuron or sublayer resolution might reveal specialization that the layer-level view hides.
  • A direct test of the task-complexity explanation is available: re-measure convergence order on the same ten relations after balancing corpus frequencies, or hold frequency fixed while varying the name-versus-location distinction, to separate data prevalence from task type.
  • The validation step the authors could not run, activation patching on even a few snapshots, is the decisive experiment: if patching the heads IFR identifies as answer-specific does not change the predicted answer, the role timeline is an artifact of the attribution method.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a time-course mechanistic interpretability study of OLMo-7B, tracking attention heads and FFNs across 40 pretraining snapshots. Using Information Flow Routes (IFR), it classifies components into four roles (general, entity, relation-answer, fact-answer) based on thresholded circuit membership, and reports that general components dominate early, specialization increases over training, answer-specific heads exhibit the highest turnover (supporting a 'repurposing' narrative), and FFNs are stable. Behavioral probing shows location-based relations are acquired earlier and more reliably than name-based relations, which the authors attribute to corpus frequency differences. The paper releases code and data.

Significance. If the central empirical claims are valid, this would be a valuable contribution: it is one of the first studies to trace component-level circuit evolution for factual recall at 7B scale across many checkpoints, and it provides a new probing dataset and open code. The behavioral LOC/NAME asymmetry and the Infini-gram frequency analysis are concrete and falsifiable. However, the component-level conclusions currently rest on thresholded IFR attributions without null baselines or uncertainty quantification, so the mechanistic narrative should be treated as provisional. The paper also explicitly acknowledges that it could not validate IFR against activation patching due to computational constraints.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.4, §4.3, Fig. 3] The fact-answer specific role is defined by cf_s = c^f_{srf}(T_a) > θ with θ = 0.1, averaged over the answer subtokens of a single fact. For one- or two-subtoken answers, cf_s is effectively a binary indicator of whether the head appears in the IFR circuit for any answer token of that fact. Because the dataset contains only 160 facts, any head that appears in the circuit for one answer token of one fact is classified as fact-answer specific. This extremely permissive criterion is used to support the claim that answer-specific heads have the highest turnover (IoU = 0.2 between the final checkpoint and the one immediately before it) and that components are 'repurposed.' No null baseline is reported—for example, shuffling fact labels, permuting circuit membership, or comparing against marginal activity counts—so the observed turnover may be threshold jitter rather than functional reallocation. The Markov transition probabilities in Fig. 6 inherit this problem. This is load-bearing for the adaptive repurposing claim and must be addressed with a null model and/or a stricter role definition.
  2. [§4.1, §4.2] The role labels and the temporal trends are both derived by thresholding the same IFR activation scores (θ = 0.1 for heads, 0.9 for FFNs). Consequently, the statements that specialized heads 'increase over time' and that general heads are 'stable' are, to a substantial degree, restatements of the classification rule rather than independent discoveries: any monotone increase in IFR scores will produce an increase in specialized counts. The only independent measurement is behavioral accuracy (Sec. 3.3). To break this circularity, the paper should validate the role assignments against an independent causal method (for example, activation patching on a subset of heads or facts) or at minimum show that the temporal trends are robust to a range of thresholds with confidence intervals. The Limitations section acknowledges the lack of patching validation, but the central claims depend on it.
  3. [§3.1, Appendix B] The probing dataset was curated by selecting facts that the fully trained main model answers with high confidence (first-token probability above 75%, second-token below 10%, Appendix B step 3). Therefore the acquisition curves in Fig. 2 describe only facts that are known at the end of training. This selection can bias the relative timing of LOC vs. NAME acquisition: if the main model is more confident on the selected LOC facts than on the selected NAME facts, the earlier convergence of LOC may be an artifact of the selection criterion. The authors should report the distribution of main-model confidence for both groups, and ideally re-run the analysis on a held-out set of facts selected without reference to the final model's confidence.
  4. [§4.3, §4.4, Fig. 3] All reported counts, IoU values, and transition probabilities are point estimates without error bars or significance tests. For example, the count of relation-answer heads at S1 is 8 out of 1024, and the IoU = 0.2 for answer-specific heads between adjacent snapshots could easily arise from a handful of heads flipping in or out of the permissive fact-answer definition. The statement in Limitations that varying θ 'does not alter the overall trends' is not supported by any presented sensitivity analysis. Please provide bootstrap confidence intervals, a threshold sweep, and/or per-snapshot error estimates for the central metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] In the definition of IoU(Hg), the text says 'Hgs represents the set of entity components' but the equation and surrounding text refer to general components; this is a typo that should be fixed.
  2. [Fig. 4] The heatmap matrices are difficult to read because the numbers are not aligned with their row and column labels in the rendered figure; please reformat for clarity.
  3. [§4.1.5] The 'proper' sets use a hierarchical exclusion (Hf = Jf − Jr − Je − Jg). The authors should report the sizes of the non-proper intersections (for example, heads that are both relation-answer and fact-answer), because these are deliberately excluded and may be large; such reporting would help readers interpret the counts.
  4. [§3.2] The snapshot naming is inconsistent: the text says '40 snapshots ... S1-20B to S39-838B' but later sections refer to 'S40-838B'; clarify the final snapshot index and its token count.
  5. [Appendix B] The template selection criterion mentions 'average probability of the facts where the first token is correct,' but the exact formula and the role of the 75% threshold could be stated more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's role taxonomy, accuracy probes, and temporal dynamics are distinct measured quantities, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its own definitions or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central narrative—general-to-specialized component evolution, repurposing after reliable prediction, and higher attention-head turnover—is an empirical summary of counts, IoU values, and transition statistics computed from thresholded IFR circuit memberships. The role definitions (Sec. 4.1) do not presuppose any temporal direction: a component is labeled general, entity, relation-answer, or fact-answer purely by whether its normalized circuit-activation average exceeds a fixed threshold. Nothing in these definitions forces the observed trajectories; the counts could have stayed flat, decreased, or failed to show the reported ordering between attention heads and FFNs. The paper does not fit a parameter to a subset of data and then 'predict' a closely related quantity; the accuracy measurements (Sec. 3.3) are external to the role classification, and the final model is used only as an IoU reference rather than as a fitted target. The IFR method and the θ=0.90 FFN threshold are cited from prior work by Ferrando et al., not by the present authors, so there is no self-citation load-bearing chain. The acknowledged limitations—fixed threshold, no activation-patching validation, no null baseline for turnover—are validity and robustness concerns, not circular reductions; they do not make any equation equal to its input by construction. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the faithfulness of IFR, fixed activation thresholds, a role taxonomy, and a probe set curated by the main model. These are assumptions inherited from prior work or chosen by the authors, not derived in this paper. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_head = 0.10
    Activation threshold for attention head role classification (Sec. 4.1); chosen based on the distribution of IFR contributions (Limitations), hand-set, not fitted to a target result.
  • theta_ffn = 0.90
    Activation threshold for FFN role classification (Sec. 4.4); taken from Ferrando et al. 2022 but hand-applied. Directly affects the FFN stability result, which the authors admit may be an artifact of this high threshold.
  • IFR pruning threshold
    Threshold on ALTI edge contributions in the IFR algorithm (Sec. 2.2, inherited from Ferrando and Voita 2024); its value is not stated in this paper but it determines which components enter the circuits and hence every role classification.
  • template_selection_thresholds = top-1 > 0.75, second-token < 0.10
    Fact reliability criteria in Appendix B used to curate the probe dataset on the main model; these thresholds affect which facts are tracked over training.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption IFR (with ALTI attribution) faithfully identifies the components responsible for a prediction at 7B scale.
    Sec. 2.2 adopts IFR without re-validation; Limitations state activation patching was computationally prohibitive, so no method-to-method comparison was performed.
  • domain assumption The fixed threshold theta and the four-role taxonomy capture functional specialization.
    Sec. 4.1 defines roles by thresholded activation; the authors acknowledge in Sec. 4.4 and Limitations that thresholds and component granularity can bias role assignment.
  • domain assumption The final (main) model's role assignment is a valid reference for measuring consistency via IoU.
    Sec. 4.2 defines IoU against Main; this assumes Main is a stable endpoint, which is itself a role set that evolved.
  • domain assumption Facts selected by the main model's high-confidence answers are representative of the model's factual knowledge acquisition.
    Appendix B curates facts requiring top-1 probability >75% on the main model, so the time-course is conditional on facts the model eventually knows.
  • domain assumption Role transitions across snapshots follow a time-homogeneous Markov chain.
    Sec. 4.2 pools transitions between unevenly spaced snapshots (S1, S10, S20, S40, Main) into a single transition matrix, implicitly assuming stationary transition probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time Course MechInterp: Analyzing the Evolution of Components and Knowledge in Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PG4VPONI

@misc{pith2026250603434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time Course MechInterp: Analyzing the Evolution of Components and Knowledge in Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PG4VPONI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03434}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding how large language models (LLMs) acquire and store factual knowledge is crucial for enhancing their interpretability and reliability. In this work, we analyze the evolution of factual knowledge representation in the OLMo-7B model by tracking the roles of its attention heads and feed forward networks (FFNs) over the course of pre-training. We classify these components into four roles: general, entity, relation-answer, and fact-answer specific, and examine their stability and transitions. Our results show that LLMs initially depend on broad, general-purpose components, which later specialize as training progresses. Once the model reliably predicts answers, some components are repurposed, suggesting an adaptive learning process. Notably, attention heads display the highest turnover. We also present evidence that FFNs remain more stable throughout training. Furthermore, our probing experiments reveal that location-based relations converge to high accuracy earlier in training than name-based relations, highlighting how task complexity shapes acquisition dynamics. These insights offer a mechanistic view of knowledge formation in LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Factual Knowledge Probing. We trace how OLMo-7B processes factual knowledge across training snapshots by extracting Information Flow Routes and evaluating prediction accuracy. To analyze component dynamics, we measure the overlap of each component’s contributions with the fully trained model using Inter￾section over Union (IoU), and track how their assigned roles evolve over time. transformer-based LLMs process and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top-1 and top-10 accuracy for location-based (LOC, orange) and name-based (NAME, teal) factual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Aggregated Head Count and IoU Across OLMo-7B Snapshots Left: IoU values comparing each snapshot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accumulated Attention Head Switches Across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Markov Chain Transition Probability Heatmap. Heatmap showing the transition probabili￾ties between different attention head roles across model snapshots. Each cell represents the probability of a head transitioning from a source role (rows) in snapshot i to a target ro…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Aggregated FFN Count and IoU Across OLMo-7B Snapshots. Left: IoU values comparing each snapshot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top-1 accuracy across different revisions of the Olmo model. Snapshots ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top-10 accuracy across different revisions of the Olmo model. Snapshots ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relation-level head counts and IoU values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (continued) Relation-level head counts and IoU values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relation-level FFN counts and IoU values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (continued) Relation-level FFN counts and IoU values. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Accumulated head switches for LOC relations, independent of switch type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Accumulated head switches for NAME relations, independent of switch type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Markov Chain Transition Probability Heatmap showing the transition probabilities between different FFNs roles across model snapshots. Each cell represents the probability of a FFN transitioning from a source role (rows) to a target role (columns). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 L…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FFN Role Transitions. Heatmaps showing the frequency of role switches among proper general, entity, relation-answer, and answer-specific FFNs across layers. General Entity Relation Answer Answer Specific Deactivated Count Target Role General Entity Relation Answer Ans…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Layer-wise analysis of FFN role switching. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pierce the Mists, Greet the Sky: Decipher Knowledge Overshadowing via Knowledge Circuit Analysis

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PhantomCircuit traces knowledge overshadowing to attention circuits during training and prunes circuit edges to recover the overshadowed answer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    These prompts were paired with factual examples to serve as inputs for model evaluation

    Prompt Template Design and Fact Collec- tion: For each of the 10 relations, we com- piled 10 prompt templates. These prompts were paired with factual examples to serve as inputs for model evaluation

    work page

  2. [2]

    The evalua- tion was based on: • The average probability of the facts where the first token is correct

    Template Evaluation and Selection : We tested all prompt templates with various factual inputs and determined the best- performing one for each relation. The evalua- tion was based on: • The average probability of the facts where the first token is correct. • The reliability score of the second to- ken, which is calculated as the ratio of valid tokens for...

    work page

  3. [3]

    How does GPT-2 compute greater-than?: In- terpreting mathematical abilities in a pre-trained lan- guage model. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023. Michael Hanna, Sandro Pezzelle, and Yonatan Belinkov

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    total count

    Final Dataset Generation: For each relation, the dataset was finalized by pairing the best- performing prompt template with the set of validated, reliable facts. The resulting dataset includes 160 facts over 10 relations, each with a single best-performing prompt template and a curated collection of reliable facts validated for high accuracy and consisten...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Michael Y

    OpenReview.net. Michael Y . Hu, Angelica Chen, Naomi Saphra, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2023. Latent state models of train- ing dynamics. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2023. Tom Lieberum, Matthew Rahtz, János Kramár, Neel Nanda, Geoffrey Irving, Rohin Shah, and Vladimir Mikulik. 2023. Does circuit analysis interpretability scale? evidence from multiple choice capabil...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    CoRR, abs/2410.01434

    Circuit compositions: Exploring modular structures in transformer-based language models. CoRR, abs/2410.01434. Max Müller-Eberstein, Rob van der Goot, Barbara Plank, and Ivan Titov. 2023. Subspace chronicles: How linguistic information emerges, shifts and in- teracts during language model training. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Competition of mechanisms: Tracing how language models handle facts and counterfactuals. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand, Au- gust 11-16, 2024, pages 8420–8436. Association for Computational Linguistics. Anna Rogers, Olga Kovaleva, and Anna Rumshisky

    work page 2024

  8. [11]

    • The second token has a probability be- low 10%

    Fact Reliability Validation: Using the best- performing template for each relation, reliable facts were identified by ensuring that: • The top-1 token is correct with a proba- bility above 75%. • The second token has a probability be- low 10%. This approach reduced reliance on syntactic biases and confirmed the semantic validity of the model’s predictions

    work page

Show all 12 references
  1. [2020]

    A primer in bertology: What we know about how BERT works. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguis- tics, 8:842–866. Cody Rushing and Neel Nanda. 2024. Explorations of self-repair in language models. In Forty-first Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austri...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [2021]

    Transformer Circuits Thread, 1(1):12

    A mathematical framework for transformer circuits. Transformer Circuits Thread, 1(1):12. Amit Elhelo and Mor Geva. 2024. Inferring functional- ity of attention heads from their parameters. CoRR, abs/2412.11965. Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, and Marta R. Costa- jussà. 202...

    2024 arXiv

  3. [2023]

    CoRR, abs/2308.15419

    Characterizing learning curves during lan- guage model pre-training: Learning, forgetting, and stability. CoRR, abs/2308.15419. Angelica Chen, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Kyunghyun Cho, Matthew L. Leavitt, and Naomi Saphra. 2024. Sud- den drops in the loss: Syntax acquisition, phase tr...

    2024 arXiv

  4. [2024]

    CoRR, abs/2403.17806

    Have faith in faithfulness: Going beyond cir- cuit overlap when finding model mechanisms. CoRR, abs/2403.17806. Adi Haviv, Ido Cohen, Jacob Gidron, Roei Schuster, Yoav Goldberg, and Mor Geva. 2023. Understanding transformer memorization recall through idioms. In Proceedings of...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.