From Early Encoding to Late Suppression: Interpreting LLMs on Character Counting Tasks
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Steering and interpreting LLM reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit failures on elementary symbolic tasks such as character counting in a word, despite excelling on complex benchmarks. Although this limitation has been noted, the internal reasons remain unclear. We use character counting (e.g., "How many p's are in apple?") as a minimal, controlled probe that isolates token-level reasoning from higher-level confounds. Using this setting, we uncover a consistent phenomenon across modern architectures, including LLaMA, Qwen, and Gemma: models often compute the correct answer internally yet fail to express it at the output layer. Through mechanistic analysis combining probing classifiers, activation patching, logit lens analysis, and attention head tracing, we show that character-level information is encoded in early and mid-layer representations. However, this information is attenuated by a small set of components in later layers, especially the penultimate and final layer MLP. We identify these components as negative circuits: subnetworks that downweight correct signals in favor of higher-probability but incorrect outputs. Our results lead to two contributions. First, we show that symbolic reasoning failures in LLMs are not due to missing representations or insufficient scale, but arise from structured interference within the model's computation graph. This explains why such errors persist and can worsen under scaling and instruction tuning. Second, we provide evidence that LLM forward passes implement a form of competitive decoding, in which correct and incorrect hypotheses coexist and are dynamically reweighted, with final outputs determined by suppression as much as by amplification. These findings carry implications for interpretability and robustness: simple symbolic reasoning exposes weaknesses in modern LLMs, underscoring need for design strategies that ensure information is encoded and reliably used.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Steering and interpreting LLM reasoning, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 26 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.
Builds on
26 of 37 references.
References · 26
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,669
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
- 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2024Qwen2 Technical Reportcited by 2,120
- 2019Root Mean Square Layer Normalizationcited by 1,480
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
14 more
- 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
- 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 422
- 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 359
- 2023Does Localization Inform Editing? Surprising Differences in Causality-Based Localization vs. Knowledge Editing in Language Modelscited by 243
- 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 214
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 207
- 2023How does GPT-2 compute greater-than?: Interpreting mathematical abilities in a pre-trained language modelcited by 202
- 2021Causal Analysis of Syntactic Agreement Mechanisms in Neural Language Modelscited by 131
- 2024Answer, Assemble, Ace: Understanding How LMs Answer Multiple Choice Questionscited by 35
- 2019Discovering the Compositional Structure of Vector Representations with Role Learning Networkscited by 34
- 2024CUTE: Measuring LLMs' Understanding of Their Tokenscited by 31
- 2022LMentry: A Language Model Benchmark of Elementary Language Taskscited by 22
- 2024Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Wordscited by 22
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Counting Ability of Large Language Models and Impact of Tokenization
- 2025Semantic Deception: When Reasoning Models Can't Compute an Addition
- 2026Understanding LLM Failures: A Multi-Tape Turing Machine Analysis of Systematic Errors in Language Model Reasoning
- 2025Tokenization Constraints in LLMs: A Study of Symbolic and Arithmetic Reasoning Limits
- 2026Disentangling Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs: A Methodological Investigation of Internal Mechanisms
- 2026Unveiling the Reasoning Process of Large Language Models
- 2026Lexical Perturbations Disrupt LLM Reasoning: An Empirical Study of Attention Diversion
- 2024LLM The Genius Paradox: A Linguistic and Math Expert's Struggle with Simple Word-based Counting Problems