Symbolic Mechanistic Data Attribution: Tracing Training Influence to Learned Behavioral Policies
On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Circuits and mechanistic analysis
Abstract (arXiv)
While existing data attribution methods can identify which training examples build specific mechanistic circuits, they cannot explain how training data shapes the behavioral decisions a model learns. We introduce Symbolic Mechanistic Data Attribution (SMDA), a framework that attributes training pairs to the interpretable symbolic policies governing model behavior. SMDA fits a closed-form Ridge regression over sparse autoencoder (SAE) features to model a behavior, then decomposes how each supervised fine-tuning (SFT) example shifts that policy through feature-activation (Delta X) and output-probability (Delta Y) pathways. We distill a symbolic policy for refusal in Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct and analyze 200 SFT pairs. Our analysis reveals (1)~the symbolic policy's coefficients expose systematic gaps in the base model's safety behavior, such as religious stereotyping; (2)~per-feature Delta X/Delta Y decomposition mechanistically explains why harmful and harmless pairs exert qualitatively different influences on certain features; and (3)~individual pairs routinely exhibit cross-feature interference, allowing SMDA to identify pairs whose dominant effect falls on unintended features. Retraining without such pairs improved accuracy by up to 4.5 percentage points over full fine-tuning. These results show that combining mechanistic interpretability with data attribution yields a diagnostic tool both more fine-grained than black-box influence functions and more scalable than manual circuit analysis.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Circuits and mechanistic analysis, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 13 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 23 references.
References · 13
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 1,032
- 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 496
- 2023Catastrophic Jailbreak of Open-source LLMs via Exploiting Generationcited by 451
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
- 2023Studying Large Language Model Generalization with Influence Functionscited by 326
- 2023Do-Not-Answer: A Dataset for Evaluating Safeguards in LLMscited by 184
- 2026Mechanistic Data Attribution: Tracing the Training Origins of Interpretable LLM Unitscited by 10
- 2026Concept Influence: Leveraging Interpretability to Improve Performance and Efficiency in Training Data Attributioncited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Scalable Attribution and Control of Model Behavior During Training
- 2025Towards Unified Attribution in Explainable AI, Data-Centric AI, and Mechanistic Interpretability
- 2026Probe-Based Data Attribution: Discovering and Mitigating Undesirable Behaviors in LLM Post-Training
- 2026From Behavior to Provenance: Attributing Tabular Foundation Models to Synthetic Pretraining Data
- 2026Circuit Condensation: Post-Training that Concentrates a Behavior's Causal Circuit
- 2025Attribution Graphs and Causal Probing for Mechanistic Discovery and Bias Repair in Multimodal Generative Learning
- 2026Causally Grounded Mechanistic Interpretability for LLMs with Faithful Natural-Language Explanations
- 2024Challenges in Mechanistically Interpreting Model Representations