Paul C. Bogdan

Paul C. Bogdan, Uzay Macar, Neel Nanda et al.

Current frontier large-language models rely on reasoning to achieve state-of-the-art performance. Many existing interpretability are limited in this area, as standard methods have been designed to study single forward passes of a model rather than the multi-token computational steps that unfold during reasoning. We argue that analyzing reasoning traces at the sentence level is a promising approach to understanding reasoning processes. We introduce a black-box method that measures each sentence's counterfactual importance by repeatedly sampling replacement sentences from the model, filtering for semantically different ones, and continuing the chain of thought from that point onwards to quantify the sentence's impact on the distribution of final answers. We discover that certain sentences can have an outsized impact on the trajectory of the reasoning trace and final answer. We term these sentences \textit{thought anchors}. These are generally planning or uncertainty management sentences, and specialized attention heads consistently attend from subsequent sentences to thought anchors. We further show that examining sentence-sentence causal links within a reasoning trace gives insight into a model's behavior. Such information can be used to predict a problem's difficulty and the extent different question domains involve sequential or diffuse reasoning. As a proof-of-concept, we demonstrate that our techniques together provide a practical toolkit for analyzing reasoning models by conducting a detailed case study of how the model solves a difficult math problem, finding that our techniques yield a consistent picture of the reasoning trace's structure. We provide an open-source tool (thought-anchors.com) for visualizing the outputs of our methods on further problems. The convergence across our methods shows the potential of sentence-level analysis for a deeper understanding of reasoning models.

Uzay Macar, Paul C. Bogdan, Senthooran Rajamanoharan et al.

Most work interpreting reasoning models studies only a single chain-of-thought (CoT), yet these models define distributions over many possible CoTs. We argue that studying a single sample is inadequate for understanding causal influence and the underlying computation. Though fully specifying this distribution is intractable, it can be understood by sampling. We present case studies using resampling to investigate model decisions. First, when a model states a reason for its action, does that reason actually cause the action? In "agentic misalignment" scenarios, we resample specific sentences to measure their downstream effects. Self-preservation sentences have small causal impact, suggesting they do not meaningfully drive blackmail. Second, are artificial edits to CoT sufficient for steering reasoning? These are common in literature, yet take the model off-policy. Resampling and selecting a completion with the desired property is a principled on-policy alternative. We find off-policy interventions yield small and unstable effects compared to resampling in decision-making tasks. Third, how do we understand the effect of removing a reasoning step when the model may repeat it post-edit? We introduce a resilience metric that repeatedly resamples to prevent similar content from reappearing downstream. Critical planning statements resist removal but have large effects when eliminated. Fourth, since CoT is sometimes "unfaithful", can our methods teach us anything in these settings? Adapting causal mediation analysis, we find that hints that have a causal effect on the output without being explicitly mentioned exert a subtle and cumulative influence on the CoT that persists even if the hint is removed. Overall, studying distributions via resampling enables reliable causal analysis, clearer narratives of model reasoning, and principled CoT interventions.

Paul C. Bogdan, Jack Lindsey

Language models must bind entities to the attributes they possess and maintain several such binding relationships within a context. We study how multiple entities are represented across token positions and whether single tokens can carry bindings for more than one entity. We introduce a multi-slot probing approach that disentangles a single token's residual stream activation to recover information about both the currently described entity and the immediately preceding one. These two kinds of information are encoded in separate and largely orthogonal "current-entity" and "prior-entity" slots. We analyze the functional roles of these slots and find that they serve different purposes. In tandem with the current-entity slot, the prior-entity slot supports relational inferences, such as entity-level induction ("who came after Alice in the story?") and conflict detection between adjacent entities. However, only the current-entity slot is used for explicit factual retrieval questions ("Is anyone in the story tall?" "What is the tall entity's name?") despite these answers being linearly decodable from the prior-entity slot too. Consistent with this limitation, open-weight models perform near chance accuracy at processing syntax that forces two subject-verb-object bindings on a single token (e.g., "Alice prepares and Bob consumes food.") Interestingly, recent frontier models can parse this properly, suggesting they may have developed more sophisticated binding strategies. Overall, our results expose a gap between information that is available in activations and information the model actually uses, and suggest that the current/prior-entity slot structure is a natural substrate for behaviors that require holding two perspectives at once, such as sycophancy and deception.

Paul C. Bogdan

Large language model (LLM) architectures are often described as functionally hierarchical: Early layers process syntax, middle layers begin to parse semantics, and late layers integrate information. The present work revisits these ideas. This research submits simple texts to an LLM (e.g., "A church and organ") and extracts the resulting activations. Then, for each layer, support vector machines and ridge regressions are fit to predict a text's label and thus examine whether a given layer encodes some information. Analyses using a small model (Llama-3.2-3b; 28 layers) partly bolster the common hierarchical perspective: Item-level semantics are most strongly represented early (layers 2-7), then two-item relations (layers 8-12), and then four-item analogies (layers 10-15). Afterward, the representation of items and simple relations gradually decreases in deeper layers that focus on more global information. However, several findings run counter to a steady hierarchy view: First, although deep layers can represent document-wide abstractions, deep layers also compress information from early portions of the context window without meaningful abstraction. Second, when examining a larger model (Llama-3.3-70b-Instruct), stark fluctuations in abstraction level appear: As depth increases, two-item relations and four-item analogies initially increase in their representation, then markedly decrease, and afterward increase again momentarily. This peculiar pattern consistently emerges across several experiments. Third, another emergent effect of scaling is coordination between the attention mechanisms of adjacent layers. Across multiple experiments using the larger model, adjacent layers fluctuate between what information they each specialize in representing. In sum, an abstraction hierarchy often manifests across layers, but large models also deviate from this structure in curious ways.