Michael A. Lepori

Michael A. Lepori, Thomas Serre, Ellie Pavlick

Though modern neural networks have achieved impressive performance in both vision and language tasks, we know little about the functions that they implement. One possibility is that neural networks implicitly break down complex tasks into subroutines, implement modular solutions to these subroutines, and compose them into an overall solution to a task - a property we term structural compositionality. Another possibility is that they may simply learn to match new inputs to learned templates, eliding task decomposition entirely. Here, we leverage model pruning techniques to investigate this question in both vision and language across a variety of architectures, tasks, and pretraining regimens. Our results demonstrate that models often implement solutions to subroutines via modular subnetworks, which can be ablated while maintaining the functionality of other subnetworks. This suggests that neural networks may be able to learn compositionality, obviating the need for specialized symbolic mechanisms.

Michael A. Lepori, Thomas Serre, Ellie Pavlick

Neural network models have achieved high performance on a wide variety of complex tasks, but the algorithms that they implement are notoriously difficult to interpret. It is often necessary to hypothesize intermediate variables involved in a network's computation in order to understand these algorithms. For example, does a language model depend on particular syntactic properties when generating a sentence? Yet, existing analysis tools make it difficult to test hypotheses of this type. We propose a new analysis technique - circuit probing - that automatically uncovers low-level circuits that compute hypothesized intermediate variables. This enables causal analysis through targeted ablation at the level of model parameters. We apply this method to models trained on simple arithmetic tasks, demonstrating its effectiveness at (1) deciphering the algorithms that models have learned, (2) revealing modular structure within a model, and (3) tracking the development of circuits over training. Across these three experiments we demonstrate that circuit probing combines and extends the capabilities of existing methods, providing one unified approach for a variety of analyses. Finally, we demonstrate circuit probing on a real-world use case: uncovering circuits that are responsible for subject-verb agreement and reflexive anaphora in GPT2-Small and Medium.

Enyan Zhang, Michael A. Lepori, Ellie Pavlick

Despite the recent success of artificial neural networks on a variety of tasks, we have little knowledge or control over the exact solutions these models implement. Instilling inductive biases -- preferences for some solutions over others -- into these models is one promising path toward understanding and controlling their behavior. Much work has been done to study the inherent inductive biases of models and instill different inductive biases through hand-designed architectures or carefully curated training regimens. In this work, we explore a more mechanistic approach: Subtask Induction. Our method discovers a functional subnetwork that implements a particular subtask within a trained model and uses it to instill inductive biases towards solutions utilizing that subtask. Subtask Induction is flexible and efficient, and we demonstrate its effectiveness with two experiments. First, we show that Subtask Induction significantly reduces the amount of training data required for a model to adopt a specific, generalizable solution to a modular arithmetic task. Second, we demonstrate that Subtask Induction successfully induces a human-like shape bias while increasing data efficiency for convolutional and transformer-based image classification models.

Alexa R. Tartaglini, Sheridan Feucht, Michael A. Lepori et al.

Although deep neural networks can achieve human-level performance on many object recognition benchmarks, prior work suggests that these same models fail to learn simple abstract relations, such as determining whether two objects are the same or different. Much of this prior work focuses on training convolutional neural networks to classify images of two same or two different abstract shapes, testing generalization on within-distribution stimuli. In this article, we comprehensively study whether deep neural networks can acquire and generalize same-different relations both within and out-of-distribution using a variety of architectures, forms of pretraining, and fine-tuning datasets. We find that certain pretrained transformers can learn a same-different relation that generalizes with near perfect accuracy to out-of-distribution stimuli. Furthermore, we find that fine-tuning on abstract shapes that lack texture or color provides the strongest out-of-distribution generalization. Our results suggest that, with the right approach, deep neural networks can learn generalizable same-different visual relations.

Jennifer Hu, Michael A. Lepori, Michael Franke

Modern AI models are increasingly being used as theoretical tools to study human cognition. One dominant approach is to evaluate whether human-derived measures are predicted by a model's output: that is, the end-product of a forward pass. However, recent advances in mechanistic interpretability have begun to reveal the internal processes that give rise to model outputs, raising the question of whether models might use human-like processing strategies. Here, we investigate the relationship between real-time processing in humans and layer-time dynamics of computation in Transformers, testing 20 open-source models in 6 domains. We first explore whether forward passes show mechanistic signatures of competitor interference, taking high-level inspiration from cognitive theories. We find that models indeed appear to initially favor a competing incorrect answer in the cases where we would expect decision conflict in humans. We then systematically test whether forward-pass dynamics predict signatures of processing in humans, above and beyond properties of the model's output probability distribution. We find that dynamic measures improve prediction of human processing measures relative to static final-layer measures. Moreover, across our experiments, larger models do not always show more human-like processing patterns. Our work suggests a new way of using AI models to study human cognition: not just as a black box mapping stimuli to responses, but potentially also as explicit processing models.

Michael A. Lepori, Ellie Pavlick, Thomas Serre

Despite recent advances in the field of explainability, much remains unknown about the algorithms that neural networks learn to represent. Recent work has attempted to understand trained models by decomposing them into functional circuits (Csordás et al., 2020; Lepori et al., 2023). To advance this research, we developed NeuroSurgeon, a python library that can be used to discover and manipulate subnetworks within models in the Huggingface Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2019). NeuroSurgeon is freely available at https://github.com/mlepori1/NeuroSurgeon.

Alexa R. Tartaglini, Michael A. Lepori

Object binding is a foundational process in visual cognition, during which low-level perceptual features are joined into object representations. Binding has been considered a fundamental challenge for neural networks, and a major milestone on the way to artificial models with flexible visual intelligence. Recently, several investigations have demonstrated evidence that binding mechanisms emerge in pretrained vision models, enabling them to associate portions of an image that contain an object. The question remains: how are these models binding objects together? In this work, we investigate whether vision models rely on the principle of Gestalt continuity to perform object binding, over and above other principles like similarity and proximity. Using synthetic datasets, we demonstrate that binding probes are sensitive to continuity across a wide range of pretrained vision transformers. Next, we uncover particular attention heads that track continuity, and show that these heads generalize across datasets. Finally, we ablate these attention heads, and show that they often contribute to producing representations that encode object binding.

Zhang Enyan, Zewei Wang, Michael A. Lepori et al.

Distributional semantics is the linguistic theory that a word's meaning can be derived from its distribution in natural language (i.e., its use). Language models are commonly viewed as an implementation of distributional semantics, as they are optimized to capture the statistical features of natural language. It is often argued that distributional semantics models should excel at capturing graded/vague meaning based on linguistic conventions, but struggle with truth-conditional reasoning and symbolic processing. We evaluate this claim with a case study on vague (e.g. "many") and exact (e.g. "more than half") quantifiers. Contrary to expectations, we find that, across a broad range of models of various types, LLMs align more closely with human judgements on exact quantifiers versus vague ones. These findings call for a re-evaluation of the assumptions underpinning what distributional semantics models are, as well as what they can capture.

Michael A. Lepori, Kendrick Kay, Greta Tuckute

A central goal of cognitive neuroscience is to characterize the features that are represented by human language cortex. Artificial language models (LMs) have emerged as a powerful tool to address this challenge, but studies relating biological and artificial representations are often criticized as relating one black box to another. The present work introduces Augmented Sparse Encoding Models, an encoding framework that replaces dense LM hidden states with hierarchically-organized sparse autoencoder (SAE) features, while explicitly including surprisal as a predictor. Using this approach, we (i) produce interpretations of neural responses and (ii) test whether model-brain alignment reflects primary or idiosyncratic variation in LM representations. Using a high-field 7T fMRI dataset of eight participants listening to 200 linguistically diverse sentences, we first validate our modeling framework by recovering previous interpretations of voxel populations tuned to processing difficulty and meaning abstractness. We then interpret a previously-uncharacterized (but reliable) voxel population and find that it is tuned to people-related content. Next, we show that the fronto-temporal human language network is predicted by a common set of features across its constituent regions, but find that frontal regions are relatively well-explained by surprisal alone, even in the absence of LM-based features. Finally, we show that brain responses during language processing are not merely predictable from an arbitrary set of LM features. Rather, brain responses are best explained by the features that tend to capture the most general information encoded in LM representations, suggesting a nontrivial correspondence between brain and LM language representation.

Thomas Fel, Binxu Wang, Michael A. Lepori et al. · harvard

DINOv2 is routinely deployed to recognize objects, scenes, and actions; yet the nature of what it perceives remains unknown. As a working baseline, we adopt the Linear Representation Hypothesis (LRH) and operationalize it using SAEs, producing a 32,000-unit dictionary that serves as the interpretability backbone of our study, which unfolds in three parts. In the first part, we analyze how different downstream tasks recruit concepts from our learned dictionary, revealing functional specialization: classification exploits "Elsewhere" concepts that fire everywhere except on target objects, implementing learned negations; segmentation relies on boundary detectors forming coherent subspaces; depth estimation draws on three distinct monocular depth cues matching visual neuroscience principles. Following these functional results, we analyze the geometry and statistics of the concepts learned by the SAE. We found that representations are partly dense rather than strictly sparse. The dictionary evolves toward greater coherence and departs from maximally orthogonal ideals (Grassmannian frames). Within an image, tokens occupy a low dimensional, locally connected set persisting after removing position. These signs suggest representations are organized beyond linear sparsity alone. Synthesizing these observations, we propose a refined view: tokens are formed by combining convex mixtures of archetypes (e.g., a rabbit among animals, brown among colors, fluffy among textures). This structure is grounded in Gardenfors' conceptual spaces and in the model's mechanism as multi-head attention produces sums of convex mixtures, defining regions bounded by archetypes. We introduce the Minkowski Representation Hypothesis (MRH) and examine its empirical signatures and implications for interpreting vision-transformer representations.

Michael A. Lepori, Jennifer Hu, Ishita Dasgupta et al.

Language models (LMs) are used for a diverse range of tasks, from question answering to writing fantastical stories. In order to reliably accomplish these tasks, LMs must be able to discern the modal category of a sentence (i.e., whether it describes something that is possible, impossible, completely nonsensical, etc.). However, recent studies have called into question the ability of LMs to categorize sentences according to modality (Michaelov et al., 2025; Kauf et al., 2023). In this work, we identify linear representations that discriminate between modal categories within a variety of LMs, or modal difference vectors. Analysis of modal difference vectors reveals that LMs have access to more reliable modal categorization judgments than previously reported. Furthermore, we find that modal difference vectors emerge in a consistent order as models become more competent (i.e., through training steps, layers, and parameter count). Notably, we find that modal difference vectors identified within LM activations can be used to model fine-grained human categorization behavior. This potentially provides a novel view into how human participants distinguish between modal categories, which we explore by correlating projections along modal difference vectors with human participants' ratings of interpretable features. In summary, we derive new insights into LM modal categorization using techniques from mechanistic interpretability, with the potential to inform our understanding of modal categorization in humans.

Michael A. Lepori, Alexa R. Tartaglini, Wai Keen Vong et al.

Though vision transformers (ViTs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance in a variety of settings, they exhibit surprising failures when performing tasks involving visual relations. This begs the question: how do ViTs attempt to perform tasks that require computing visual relations between objects? Prior efforts to interpret ViTs tend to focus on characterizing relevant low-level visual features. In contrast, we adopt methods from mechanistic interpretability to study the higher-level visual algorithms that ViTs use to perform abstract visual reasoning. We present a case study of a fundamental, yet surprisingly difficult, relational reasoning task: judging whether two visual entities are the same or different. We find that pretrained ViTs fine-tuned on this task often exhibit two qualitatively different stages of processing despite having no obvious inductive biases to do so: 1) a perceptual stage wherein local object features are extracted and stored in a disentangled representation, and 2) a relational stage wherein object representations are compared. In the second stage, we find evidence that ViTs can learn to represent somewhat abstract visual relations, a capability that has long been considered out of reach for artificial neural networks. Finally, we demonstrate that failures at either stage can prevent a model from learning a generalizable solution to our fairly simple tasks. By understanding ViTs in terms of discrete processing stages, one can more precisely diagnose and rectify shortcomings of existing and future models.

Michael A. Lepori

We present a new approach for detecting human-like social biases in word embeddings using representational similarity analysis. Specifically, we probe contextualized and non-contextualized embeddings for evidence of intersectional biases against Black women. We show that these embeddings represent Black women as simultaneously less feminine than White women, and less Black than Black men. This finding aligns with intersectionality theory, which argues that multiple identity categories (such as race or sex) layer on top of each other in order to create unique modes of discrimination that are not shared by any individual category.

Michael A. Lepori, R. Thomas McCoy

As the name implies, contextualized representations of language are typically motivated by their ability to encode context. Which aspects of context are captured by such representations? We introduce an approach to address this question using Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA). As case studies, we investigate the degree to which a verb embedding encodes the verb's subject, a pronoun embedding encodes the pronoun's antecedent, and a full-sentence representation encodes the sentence's head word (as determined by a dependency parse). In all cases, we show that BERT's contextualized embeddings reflect the linguistic dependency being studied, and that BERT encodes these dependencies to a greater degree than it encodes less linguistically-salient controls. These results demonstrate the ability of our approach to adjudicate between hypotheses about which aspects of context are encoded in representations of language.

Michael A. Lepori, Tal Linzen, R. Thomas McCoy

Sequence-based neural networks show significant sensitivity to syntactic structure, but they still perform less well on syntactic tasks than tree-based networks. Such tree-based networks can be provided with a constituency parse, a dependency parse, or both. We evaluate which of these two representational schemes more effectively introduces biases for syntactic structure that increase performance on the subject-verb agreement prediction task. We find that a constituency-based network generalizes more robustly than a dependency-based one, and that combining the two types of structure does not yield further improvement. Finally, we show that the syntactic robustness of sequential models can be substantially improved by fine-tuning on a small amount of constructed data, suggesting that data augmentation is a viable alternative to explicit constituency structure for imparting the syntactic biases that sequential models are lacking.

Michael A Lepori, Chaz Firestone

The rise of machine-learning systems that process sensory input has brought with it a rise in comparisons between human and machine perception. But such comparisons face a challenge: Whereas machine perception of some stimulus can often be probed through direct and explicit measures, much of human perceptual knowledge is latent, incomplete, or unavailable for explicit report. Here, we explore how this asymmetry can cause such comparisons to misestimate the overlap in human and machine perception. As a case study, we consider human perception of \textit{adversarial speech} -- synthetic audio commands that are recognized as valid messages by automated speech-recognition systems but that human listeners reportedly hear as meaningless noise. In five experiments, we adapt task designs from the human psychophysics literature to show that even when subjects cannot freely transcribe such speech commands (the previous benchmark for human understanding), they often can demonstrate other forms of understanding, including discriminating adversarial speech from closely matched non-speech (Experiments 1--2), finishing common phrases begun in adversarial speech (Experiments 3--4), and solving simple math problems posed in adversarial speech (Experiment 5) -- even for stimuli previously described as unintelligible to human listeners. We recommend the adoption of such "sensitive tests" when comparing human and machine perception, and we discuss the broader consequences of such approaches for assessing the overlap between systems.