This work was produced as part of the ML Alignment & Theory Scholars Program - Winter 2023-24 Cohort, with mentorship from Adrià Garriga-Alonso. Equal contribution by Niels and Iván.

Summary

In this post we analyse the circuit evaluation metrics proposed by Wang et al. (IOI paper) and show that their specific formalisation allows for counter intuitive examples that don't always reflect the natural language properties they aim to capture. For example, some incomplete circuits can be made complete by removing components, and there exist faithful, complete and minimal circuits that have smaller circuits that are also faithful, complete and minimal.

Introduction

The main goal of Mechanistic Interpretability is to reverse engineer neural networks to make the learned weights into human-interpretable algorithms, hoping to develop a more principled understanding of deep learning. In this setup, models are seen as computational graphs, and circuits are subgraphs with distinct functionality. Circuits serve as a critical unit of measure to understand neural networks, since they allow us to analyse a model's behaviour only on a subset of its capabilities, usually by constraining the space of inputs to the ones associated with a specific task (e.g., the Indirect Object Identification task, as described by Wang et al.). Although circuits can be labelled, by assigning a human interpretation to some of its parts, in this post we focus on unlabelled ones.

In recent years, several techniques have been proposed for finding circuits (either manually or automatically). That is, given a specific task for which the model has a good performance, find the circuit (subgraph in the model) that is responsible for it.

Evaluation metrics

As part of the circuit discovery techniques, researchers have also designed and proposed circuit evaluation metrics that measure whether a circuit is "good" or not. However, although the natural language interpretation of these metrics usually seems reasonable, their specific formalisation can sometimes lead to counter intuitive results as we will show. In the following sections, we describe and present limitations for the three metrics proposed by Wang et al.: faithfulness, completeness, and minimality. Further details and specific examples can be found in the Appendix.

Notation: $M$ is the full model,&nb...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments