mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Every Ablation Is a Dose: Counterweights and the Semblance of Self-Repair

arXiv 2610.02173 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ablate a component of a language model, and other components often appear to adjust and compensate. This phenomenon, termed self-repair, has been observed repeatedly, but its mechanism remains unclear. The most systematic study to date concluded that self-repair is noisy and unlikely to have a single explanation. We argue that it has one: a gain already present before any ablation. Any intervention on a causally important component can be viewed as a point on a coordinate axis λ, the signed strength of a counterfactual contrast. Hence, conventional ablation methods are uncalibrated points on this axis. We show that the causal repair response for a fine-grained unit r is governed by an affine law, Er(λ)=ownr+γrλ. The slope γr is a fixed coefficient that consistently influences the model, with or without ablation, and its sign determines whether the unit counteracts or reinforces the removed signal. On a factual-verdict task across four models from distinct families (Gemma, Qwen, LLaMA, and Mistral), we identify components including MLP neurons, OV neurons, and singular directions that follow this affine law, 68 of 81 downstream directions in all. Moreover, we can anticipate the magnitude of γr from the fixed weights. On the IOI circuit of GPT-2 Small, seven of the ten heads the intervention can reach follow the law, and all seven are counterweights. From this perspective, what may appear as self-repair is a counterweight performing its usual operation when the contrastive signal emerges at the core.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

23 of 46 references.

References · 23

  1. 2020Transformer Feed-Forward Layers Are Key-Value Memoriescited by 1,336
  2. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  3. 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
  4. 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
  5. 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
  6. 2017Learning Sparse Neural Networks through L0 Regularizationcited by 583
  7. 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 422
  8. 2023Towards Best Practices of Activation Patching in Language Models: Metrics and Methodscited by 359
  9. 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 214
  10. 2020Causal Mediation Analysis for Interpreting Neural NLP: The Case of Gender Biascited by 191
  11. 2023The Hydra Effect: Emergent Self-repair in Language Model Computationscited by 156
  12. 2021An Interpretability Illusion for BERTcited by 97
11 more
  1. 2024Explorations of Self-Repair in Language Modelscited by 39
  2. 2024Optimal ablation for interpretabilitycited by 25
  3. 2024Transformer Circuit Faithfulness Metrics are not Robustcited by 22
  4. 2024A Reply to Makelov et al. (2023)'s "Interpretability Illusion" Argumentscited by 17
  5. 2026The Curse of Multiple Mediators: Hidden Interaction Effects in Activation Patchingcited by 11
  6. 2025Rethinking Circuit Completeness in Language Models: AND, OR, and ADDER Gatescited by 10
  7. 2026Conditional Co-Ablation: Recovering Self-Repair Backups in Transformer Circuitscited by 9
  8. 2025Beyond Components: Singular Vector-Based Interpretability of Transformer Circuitscited by 7
  9. 2026Function-Vector Heads Are Two Populations: Writers and Cancellers in In-Context Learningcited by 2
  10. 2020Neural Natural Language Inference Models Partially Embed Theories of Lexical Entailment and Negationcited by 1
  11. 2026Through the Looking Glass: Directly Reading and Writing Transformerscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.