Extracting Rule-based Descriptions of Attention Features in Transformers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanistic interpretability strives to explain model behavior in terms of bottom-up primitives. The leading paradigm is to express hidden states as a sparse linear combination of basis vectors, called features. However, this only identifies which text sequences (exemplars) activate which features; the actual interpretation of features requires subjective inspection of these exemplars. This paper advocates for a different solution: rule-based descriptions that match token patterns in the input and correspondingly increase or decrease the likelihood of specific output tokens. Specifically, we extract rule-based descriptions of SAE features trained on the outputs of attention layers. While prior work treats the attention layers as an opaque box, we describe how it may naturally be expressed in terms of interactions between input and output features, of which we study three types: (1) skip-gram rules of the form "[Canadian city]... speaks --> English", (2) absence rules of the form "[Montreal]... speaks -/-> English," and (3) counting rules that toggle only when the count of a word exceeds a certain value or the count of another word. Absence and counting rules are not readily discovered by inspection of exemplars, where manual and automatic descriptions often identify misleading or incomplete explanations. We then describe a simple approach to extract these types of rules automatically from a transformer, and apply it to GPT-2 small. We find that a majority of features may be described well with around 100 skip-gram rules, though absence rules are abundant even as early as the first layer (in over a fourth of features). We also isolate a few examples of counting rules. This paper lays the groundwork for future research into rule-based descriptions of features by defining them, showing how they may be extracted, and providing a preliminary taxonomy of some of the behaviors they represent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".