Ziqian Zhong

Ziqian Zhong, Ziming Liu, Max Tegmark et al. · microsoft-research, mit

Do neural networks, trained on well-understood algorithmic tasks, reliably rediscover known algorithms for solving those tasks? Several recent studies, on tasks ranging from group arithmetic to in-context linear regression, have suggested that the answer is yes. Using modular addition as a prototypical problem, we show that algorithm discovery in neural networks is sometimes more complex. Small changes to model hyperparameters and initializations can induce the discovery of qualitatively different algorithms from a fixed training set, and even parallel implementations of multiple such algorithms. Some networks trained to perform modular addition implement a familiar Clock algorithm; others implement a previously undescribed, less intuitive, but comprehensible procedure which we term the Pizza algorithm, or a variety of even more complex procedures. Our results show that even simple learning problems can admit a surprising diversity of solutions, motivating the development of new tools for characterizing the behavior of neural networks across their algorithmic phase space.

Ziming Liu, Ziqian Zhong, Max Tegmark

We attribute grokking, the phenomenon where generalization is much delayed after memorization, to compression. To do so, we define linear mapping number (LMN) to measure network complexity, which is a generalized version of linear region number for ReLU networks. LMN can nicely characterize neural network compression before generalization. Although the $L_2$ norm has been a popular choice for characterizing model complexity, we argue in favor of LMN for a number of reasons: (1) LMN can be naturally interpreted as information/computation, while $L_2$ cannot. (2) In the compression phase, LMN has linear relations with test losses, while $L_2$ is correlated with test losses in a complicated nonlinear way. (3) LMN also reveals an intriguing phenomenon of the XOR network switching between two generalization solutions, while $L_2$ does not. Besides explaining grokking, we argue that LMN is a promising candidate as the neural network version of the Kolmogorov complexity since it explicitly considers local or conditioned linear computations aligned with the nature of modern artificial neural networks.

Ziqian Zhong, Aashiq Muhamed, Mona T. Diab et al.

Mechanistic interpretability is often motivated for alignment auditing, where a model's verbal explanations can be absent, incomplete, or misleading. Yet many evaluations do not control whether black-box prompting alone can recover the target behavior, so apparent gains from white-box tools may reflect elicitation rather than internal signal; we call this the elicitation confounder. We introduce Pando, a model-organism benchmark that breaks this confound via an explanation axis: models are trained to produce either faithful explanations of the true rule, no explanation, or confident but unfaithful explanations of a disjoint distractor rule. Across 720 finetuned models implementing hidden decision-tree rules, agents predict held-out model decisions from $10$ labeled query-response pairs, optionally augmented with one interpretability tool output. When explanations are faithful, black-box elicitation matches or exceeds all white-box methods; when explanations are absent or misleading, gradient-based attribution improves accuracy by 3-5 percentage points, and relevance patching, RelP, gives the largest gains, while logit lens, sparse autoencoders, and circuit tracing provide no reliable benefit. Variance decomposition suggests gradients track decision computation, which fields causally drive the output, whereas other readouts are dominated by task representation, biases toward field identity and value. We release all models, code, and evaluation infrastructure.