Karim Saraipour

Hongzhe Du, Weikai Li, Min Cai et al.

Post-training is essential for the success of large language models (LLMs), transforming pre-trained base models into more useful and aligned post-trained models. While plenty of works have studied post-training algorithms and evaluated post-training models by their outputs, it remains understudied how post-training reshapes LLMs internally. In this paper, we compare base and post-trained LLMs mechanistically from four perspectives to better understand post-training effects. Our findings across model families and datasets reveal that: (1) Post-training does not change the factual knowledge storage locations, and it adapts knowledge representations from the base model while developing new knowledge representations; (2) Both truthfulness and refusal can be represented by vectors in the hidden representation space. The truthfulness direction is highly similar between the base and post-trained model, and it is effectively transferable for interventions; (3) The refusal direction is different between the base and post-trained models, and it shows limited forward transferability; (4) Differences in confidence between the base and post-trained models cannot be attributed to entropy neurons. Our study provides insights into the fundamental mechanisms preserved and altered during post-training, facilitates downstream tasks like model steering, and could potentially benefit future research in interpretability and LLM post-training. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/HZD01/post-training-mechanistic-analysis.

Karim Saraipour, Shichang Zhang

Transformer-based language models (LMs) can perform a wide range of tasks, and mechanistic interpretability (MI) aims to reverse engineer the components responsible for task completion to understand their behavior. Previous MI research has focused on linguistic tasks such as Indirect Object Identification (IOI). In this paper, we investigate the ability of GPT-2 small to handle binary truth values by analyzing its behavior with syllogistic prompts, e.g., "Statement A is true. Statement B matches statement A. Statement B is", which requires more complex logical reasoning compared to IOI. Through our analysis of several syllogism tasks of varying difficulty, we identify multiple circuits that mechanistically explain GPT-2's logical-reasoning capabilities and uncover binary mechanisms that facilitate task completion, including the ability to produce a negated token not present in the input prompt through negative heads. Our evaluation using a faithfulness metric shows that a circuit comprising five attention heads achieves over 90% of the original model's performance. By relating our findings to IOI analysis, we provide new insights into the roles of specific attention heads and MLPs in LMs. These insights contribute to a broader understanding of model reasoning and support future research in mechanistic interpretability.