mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Recovering Lesion Parameters from Aphasic Picture Naming Error Profiles in Large Language Models

arXiv 2608.06429 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Mechanistic interpretability → Interpreting biomedical and science models

Abstract (arXiv)

Interpretability methods for large language models (LLMs) describe internal state but do not directly test whether that state is causally sufficient to produce the observed behavior. In earlier work, we lesioned LLMs to produce error profiles in picture naming, a central task for assessing aphasia, and found that specific lesions produced errors resembling those of individual stroke survivors. Here we ask the inverse question: given an error profile, can the lesion parameters that produced it be recovered, and what does this inverse problem reveal about transformer computation? Lesions in LLaVA-Vicuna 13B were parameterized by layer index, modification percentage, and noise sigma across 4,840 configurations, and error profiles were characterized by a seven-category clinical taxonomy (correct, semantic, unrelated, formal, mixed, neologism, no-response). We trained a multi-task neural network to map error profiles back to perturbation parameters. The problem admitted a partial solution: across 10 independently trained inverse models, modification percentage and noise sigma were recoverable, whereas layer index was recoverable only within a neighborhood. In counterfactual validation, a fresh model instance perturbed with the recovered parameters reproduced the target behavior in 81.4% of cases. This dissociation between low layer recovery and high counterfactual fidelity is consistent with functional redundancy across transformer layers, a property not captured by standard interpretability methods. As an out-of-distribution test, we applied the trained model to picture-naming error profiles from 278 stroke survivors; recovered parameters were syndrome-discriminative, most strongly for perturbation intensity, indicating generalization beyond the training distribution. Counterfactual validation provides a general framework for LLM interpretability claims beyond inverse mapping.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Interpreting biomedical and science models, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability. Builds on 15 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 28 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  3. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  4. 2023Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 7,869
  5. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  6. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,352
  7. 2021DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharingcited by 1,254
  8. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
  9. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,059
  10. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
  11. 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
  12. 2024Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Reviewcited by 422
3 more
  1. 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 191
  2. 2026Stroke Lesions as a Rosetta Stone for Language Model Interpretabilitycited by 2
  3. 2026Lesioned Multimodal Language Models Reproduce Aphasic Picture-Naming Patternscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Perturbation-based Regional Interpretability through Subtraction Mapping (PRISM): naming-error dissociations in language models and post-stroke aphasia
  2. 2026Component-Level Lesioning of Language Models Reveals Clinically Aligned Aphasia Phenotypes
  3. 2026NeuroVLM-Bench: Evaluation of Vision-Enabled Large Language Models for Clinical Reasoning in Neurological Disorders
  4. 2026Evaluating the Diagnostic Robustness of Vision-Language Models Under Visual and Textual Perturbations
  5. 2026Confident but Unreliable: A Behavioral Safety Audit of Vision-Language Models on Brain MRI
  6. 2026Computational Lesions in Multilingual Language Models Separate Shared and Language-specific Brain Alignment
  7. 2026Prompts Without Evidence: How Neuroimaging Mentions Shift Clinical Vision-Language Model Predictions
  8. 2026Do Language Models Align with Brains? Prediction Scores Are Not Enough