Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 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

arxiv 2310.14491 v1 pith:U3LJPS4Y submitted 2023-10-23 cs.CL

Towards a Mechanistic Interpretation of Multi-Step Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningmulti-steptaskstreecapabilitiesinterpretationlanguagemechanistic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reading and Steering Representations of Materials-Science Mechanisms in an Open-Weight Language Model

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    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.