arXiv subjects

David Bau

Publications and source records attributed to David Bau.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Using OCR Heads to Verbalize Image Semantics

How do VLMs map from pixels to semantics? To understand this general question, we focus on a narrow one: studying how VLMs perform optical character recognition (OCR). Across four models, we identify attention heads causally necessary for OCR, and discover that these are in fact general-purpose heads that output interpretable semantic features across all image tokens. For example, pointing these heads at an image token containing the word "bike" causes Qwen3-VL-8B to output "bike," but pointing them at a bird wing causes the model to output the token "feathers." We collapse these heads' attention weights into a single verbalization lens transformation that reveals interpretable semantic features in hidden states across all layers. When combined with projection to vocabulary space, we can obtain interpretable labels starting from layer 0, showing that image representations are in fact aligned with language in early layers. We find that we can also use the inverse of this transformation to edit non-word concepts, e.g., replacing a tractor with a revolver in a naturalistic image, providing causal evidence that this subspace is useful for more than just OCR. Our results are an example of how the study of specific mechanisms can shed light on broader interpretability problems.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Opt-In Art: Learning Art Styles Only from Few Examples

We explore whether pre-training on datasets with paintings is necessary for a model to learn an artistic style with only a few examples. To investigate this, we train a text-to-image model exclusively on photographs, without access to any painting-related content. We show that it is possible to adapt a model that is trained without paintings to an artistic style, given only few examples. User studies and automatic evaluations confirm that our model (post-adaptation) performs on par with state-of-the-art models trained on massive datasets that contain artistic content like paintings, drawings or illustrations. Finally, using data attribution techniques, we analyze how both artistic and non-artistic datasets contribute to generating artistic-style images. Surprisingly, our findings suggest that high-quality artistic outputs can be achieved without prior exposure to artistic data, indicating that artistic style generation can occur in a controlled, opt-in manner using only a limited, carefully selected set of training examples.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Mechanistic Interpretability of Structure-Aware Numerical Reasoning in LLaMA 3.1 8B

Recent work has shown that large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong numerical sequence modeling capabilities and show promise in time-series prediction. While LLMs display in-context learning capabilities, the mechanisms with which they accomplish time-series prediction remain unclear. Specifically, whether they truly understand the underlying structure, which at a minimum requires reasoning over first differences in the sequence of numbers. To study this, we investigate Llama 3.1-8B from a mechanistic interpretability point of view. Mechanistic interpretability is an emerging field concerned with the reverse engineering of the algorithms learned by neural networks such as LLMs. To assess Llamas' numerical sequence modeling capabilities and to facilitate our mechanistic interpretability analysis, we create a sequence modeling task that cannot be solved without picking up structural cues. Specifically, we sample n random numbers and repeat them with an offset. We find that Llama displays strong performance on our tasks suggesting that it can pick up on the underlying structure. To understand the mechanisms that allow it to do so, we perform probing experiments and activation patching based counterfactual analysis. Probing reveals that the model computes and stores first differences in its internal representations without explicit supervision, indicating that it tracks structural information about the sequence. Activation patching reveals that Llama retrieves the relevant first-difference with a mechanism similar to an induction circuit and subsequently adds it to the current value. Notably, our work represents one of the first studies to identify this form of concept induction in LLMs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

LLMs Encode Harmfulness and Refusal Separately

LLMs are trained to refuse harmful instructions, but do they truly understand harmfulness beyond just refusing? Prior work has shown that LLMs' refusal behaviors can be mediated by a one-dimensional subspace, i.e., a refusal direction. In this work, we identify a new dimension to analyze safety mechanisms in LLMs, i.e., harmfulness, which is encoded internally as a separate concept from refusal. There exists a harmfulness direction that is distinct from the refusal direction. As causal evidence, steering along the harmfulness direction can lead LLMs to interpret harmless instructions as harmful, but steering along the refusal direction tends to elicit refusal responses directly without reversing the model's judgment on harmfulness. Furthermore, using our identified harmfulness concept, we find that certain jailbreak methods work by reducing the refusal signals without reversing the model's internal belief of harmfulness. We also find that adversarially finetuning models to accept harmful instructions has minimal impact on the model's internal belief of harmfulness. These insights lead to a practical safety application: The model's latent harmfulness representation can serve as an intrinsic safeguard (Latent Guard) for detecting unsafe inputs and reducing over-refusals that is robust to finetuning attacks. For instance, our Latent Guard achieves performance comparable to or better than Llama Guard 3 8B, a dedicated finetuned safeguard model, across different jailbreak methods. Our findings suggest that LLMs' internal understanding of harmfulness is more robust than their refusal decision to diverse input instructions, offering a new perspective to study AI safety.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Piggyback Hypothesis of Generalization: Explaining and Mitigating Emergent Misalignment

The mechanisms behind LLMs' broad over-generalization beyond training examples remain unclear. Emergent misalignment (EM) offers a striking case study: finetuning on narrow tasks induces broad misalignment to semantically-unrelated test domains. In this work, we propose the Piggyback Hypothesis: the chat-template tokens can piggyback the finetuned behaviour onto out-of-domain queries. We validate this hypothesis by showing that subtle perturbations to the prefix (tokens preceding all user queries), or patching the prefix representations with those from the unfinetuned model, can restore alignment without changing the user query. Building on this finding, we propose Token-Regularized Finetuning (TReFT), which regularizes specific token representations during training to mitigate EM. Across different models and multiple EM-inducing datasets, TReFT reduces EM while preserving in-domain learning. On Llama-3.1-8B finetuned on the legal domain, TReFT achieves 33.5% more EM reduction than data interleaving with a retain set of aligned examples. We further show that TReFT extends to other narrow-finetuning settings, including abstention, tool use, and refusal (off-topic generalization is reduced by 54.3% on average), supporting the Piggyback Hypothesis. Broadly, our work highlights that LLMs may learn and generalize in unintended ways and suggests a path toward more constrained finetuning. It also calls for further study of how shared input features can piggyback model behavior across domains.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs

One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task -- which we dub lexical task heads -- and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Two Stages of Folding: Convergent Mechanisms in AI Protein Folding Trunks

How do protein structure prediction models fold proteins? We investigate this question through causal interventions on the folding trunks of ESMFold, OpenFold, and Boltz-1. Across all three models, we find a shared two-stage computational structure. In the first stage, early blocks initialize pairwise biochemical signals: features like charge propagate from sequence into pairwise representations through architecture-specific pathways. In the second stage, late blocks develop pairwise spatial features: distance and contact information accumulate in the pairwise representation. We verify these mechanisms causally by showing that steering charge and distance features induces predictable structural changes. Furthermore, these representations are functionally interchangeable: pairwise states can be linearly aligned and substituted across models. Together, these results suggest that folding trunks with different architectures, inputs, and training procedures converge on a shared representational organization for mapping sequence chemistry into spatial geometry.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Gaze Heads: How VLMs Look at What They Describe

How a vision-language model internally solves the task of describing an image is far from obvious. We find that the model develops a specific mechanism for this: a small set of attention heads in its language-model backbone, which we call gaze heads, whose attention tracks the image region the model is currently describing. We find them with a simple correlation score from a few forward passes, using comic strips as a controlled testbed where narrative order is laid out spatially. These gaze heads do not just track the image tokens being described: redirecting their attention to a chosen region forces the VLM to describe that region instead. A single attention-mask intervention on the top-100 gaze heads, fewer than 9% of all heads, steers the model's answer to any chosen comic panel at 83.1% accuracy, while the same intervention on random heads fails to redirect the answer, and intervening on all heads destroys generation. The same lever also extends to continuous control: switching the gaze target mid-generation makes the model wrap up its current panel description and move to the new one within a few tokens. Beyond comics, the same intervention redirects answers to chosen regions in natural COCO images. The mechanism further recurs across model sizes from 2B to 32B parameters and across other VLM architectures, although some frozen-encoder families show no comparable head set. More broadly, this shows that targeted edits identified through mechanistic analysis can serve as practical inference-time levers for steering multimodal model behavior, without any retraining. Our code, interactive demo, and datasets are available at https://gaze.baulab.info/

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

The Dual Mechanisms of Spatial Variable Binding in Vision-Language Models

Many multimodal tasks, such as image captioning and visual question answering, require vision-language models (VLMs) to bind objects with their properties and spatial relations. Yet it remains unclear where and how such associations are computed within VLMs. In this work, we show that VLMs rely on two concurrent mechanisms to represent spatial variable binding. In the language model backbone, intermediate layers represent content-independent spatial relations on top of visual tokens corresponding to objects. However, this mechanism plays only a secondary role in shaping model predictions. Instead, the dominant source of spatial information originates in the vision encoder, whose representations encode the layout of objects and are directly exploited by the language model backbone. Notably, this spatial signal is distributed globally across visual tokens, extending beyond object regions into surrounding background areas. We show that enhancing these vision-derived spatial representations globally across all image tokens improves spatial variable binding performance across models of various sizes on complex natural images from the COCO datasets. Together, our results clarify how spatial variable binding is computed within VLMs and highlight the central role of vision encoders in enabling it.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

LLMs Process Lists With General Filter Heads

We investigate the mechanisms underlying a range of list-processing tasks in LLMs, and we find that LLMs have learned to encode a compact, causal representation of a general filtering operation that mirrors the generic "filter" function of functional programming. Using causal mediation analysis on a diverse set of list-processing tasks, we find that a small number of attention heads, which we dub filter heads, encode a compact representation of the filtering predicate in their query states at certain tokens. We demonstrate that this predicate representation is general and portable: it can be extracted and reapplied to execute the same filtering operation on different collections, presented in different formats, languages, or even in tasks. However, we also identify situations where transformer LMs can exploit a different strategy for filtering: eagerly evaluating if an item satisfies the predicate and storing this intermediate result as a flag directly in the item representations. Our results reveal that transformer LMs can develop human-interpretable implementations of abstract computational operations that generalize in ways that are surprisingly similar to strategies used in traditional functional programming patterns.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

In-Context Algebra

We investigate the mechanisms that arise when transformers are trained to solve arithmetic on sequences where tokens are variables whose meaning is determined only through their interactions in-context. While prior work has studied transformers in settings where the answer relies on fixed parametric or geometric information encoded in token embeddings, we devise a new in-context reasoning task where the assignment of tokens to specific algebraic elements varies from one sequence to another. Despite this challenging setup, transformers achieve near-perfect accuracy on the task and even generalize to unseen groups. We develop targeted data distributions to create causal tests of a set of hypothesized mechanisms, and we isolate three mechanisms models consistently learn: commutative copying where a dedicated head copies answers, identity element recognition that distinguishes identity-containing facts, and closure-based cancellation that tracks group membership to constrain valid answers. Our findings show that the kinds of reasoning strategies learned by transformers are dependent on the task structure and that models can develop symbolic reasoning mechanisms when trained to reason in-context about variables whose meanings are not fixed.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Language Models use Lookbacks to Track Beliefs

How do language models (LMs) represent characters' beliefs, especially when those beliefs may differ from reality? This question lies at the heart of understanding the Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities of LMs. We analyze LMs' ability to reason about characters' beliefs using causal mediation and abstraction. We construct a dataset, CausalToM, consisting of simple stories where two characters independently change the state of two objects, potentially unaware of each other's actions. Our investigation uncovers a pervasive algorithmic pattern that we call a lookback mechanism, which enables the LM to recall important information when it becomes necessary. The LM binds each character-object-state triple together by co-locating their reference information, represented as Ordering IDs (OIs), in low-rank subspaces of the state token's residual stream. When asked about a character's beliefs regarding the state of an object, the binding lookback retrieves the correct state OI and then the answer lookback retrieves the corresponding state token. When we introduce text specifying that one character is (not) visible to the other, we find that the LM first generates a visibility ID encoding the relation between the observing and the observed character OIs. In a visibility lookback, this ID is used to retrieve information about the observed character and update the observing character's beliefs. Our work provides insights into belief tracking mechanisms, taking a step toward reverse-engineering ToM reasoning in LMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Agents of Chaos

We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment with persistent memory, email accounts, Discord access, file systems, and shell execution. Over a two-week period, twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions. Focusing on failures emerging from the integration of language models with autonomy, tool use, and multi-party communication, we document eleven representative case studies. Observed behaviors include unauthorized compliance with non-owners, disclosure of sensitive information, execution of destructive system-level actions, denial-of-service conditions, uncontrolled resource consumption, identity spoofing vulnerabilities, cross-agent propagation of unsafe practices, and partial system takeover. In several cases, agents reported task completion while the underlying system state contradicted those reports. We also report on some of the failed attempts. Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings. These behaviors raise unresolved questions regarding accountability, delegated authority, and responsibility for downstream harms, and warrant urgent attention from legal scholars, policymakers, and researchers across disciplines. This report serves as an initial empirical contribution to that broader conversation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

In-Context Learning Without Copying

Induction heads are attention heads that perform inductive copying by matching patterns from earlier context and copying their continuations verbatim. As models develop induction heads, they experience a sharp drop in training loss, a phenomenon cited as evidence that induction heads may underlie a wide range of in-context learning (ICL) capabilities. In this work, we investigate whether induction heads are a necessary building block for learning abstractive ICL capabilities (i.e., tasks where the answer is not contained in the input context), or whether such capabilities can emerge independently. We propose Hapax, a training regime that omits the loss contribution of tokens predictable by induction heads. Despite a significant reduction in inductive copying, abstractive ICL capabilities are preserved, with the model achieving higher accuracy than the vanilla model on 13 out of 21 tasks, even though 31.7% of tokens are omitted from the loss. Furthermore, our model achieves lower loss values on token positions that induction heads cannot predict. Mechanistic analysis shows that models trained with Hapax develop fewer and weaker induction heads despite preserving abstractive ICL capabilities. Our findings suggest that the developmental link between induction heads and abstractive ICL capabilities is weaker than previously hypothesized.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do explanations generalize across large reasoning models?

Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce a textual chain of thought (CoT) in the process of solving a problem, which serves as a potentially powerful tool to understand the problem by surfacing a human-readable, natural-language explanation. However, it is unclear whether these explanations generalize, i.e. whether they capture general patterns about the underlying problem rather than patterns which are esoteric to the LRM. This is a crucial question in understanding or discovering new concepts, e.g. in AI for science. We study this generalization question by evaluating a specific notion of generalizability: whether explanations produced by one LRM induce the same behavior when given to other LRMs. We find that CoT explanations often exhibit this form of generalization (i.e. they increase consistency between LRMs) and that this increased generalization is correlated with human preference rankings and post-training with reinforcement learning. We further analyze the conditions under which explanations yield consistent answers and propose a straightforward, sentence-level ensembling strategy that improves consistency. Taken together, these results prescribe caution when using LRM explanations to yield new insights and outline a framework for characterizing LRM explanation generalization.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Vector Arithmetic in Concept and Token Subspaces

In order to predict the next token, LLMs must represent semantic and surface-level information about the current word. Previous work identified two types of attention heads that disentangle this information: (i) Concept induction heads, which copy word meanings, and (ii) Token induction heads, which copy literal token representations (Feucht et al., 2025). We show that these heads can be used to identify subspaces of model activations that exhibit coherent semantic structure in Llama-2-7b. Specifically, when we transform hidden states using the attention weights of concept heads, we are able to more accurately perform parallelogram arithmetic (Mikolov et al., 2013) on the resulting hidden states, e.g., showing that "Athens" - "Greece" + "China" = "Beijing". This transformation allows for much higher nearest-neighbor accuracy (80%) than direct use of raw hidden states (47%). Analogously, we show that token heads allow for transformations that reveal surface-level word information in hidden states, allowing for operations like "coding" - "code" + "dance" = "dancing".

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Distilling Diversity and Control in Diffusion Models

Distilled diffusion models generate images in far fewer timesteps but suffer from reduced sample diversity when generating multiple outputs from the same prompt. To understand this phenomenon, we first investigate whether distillation damages concept representations by examining if the required diversity is properly learned. Surprisingly, distilled models retain the base model's representational structure: control mechanisms like Concept Sliders and LoRAs transfer seamlessly without retraining, and SliderSpace analysis reveals distilled models possess variational directions needed for diversity yet fail to activate them. This redirects our investigation to understanding how the generation dynamics differ between base and distilled models. Using $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{0}$ trajectory visualization, we discover distilled models commit to their final image structure almost immediately at the first timestep, while base models distribute structural decisions across many steps. To test whether this first-step commitment causes the diversity loss, we introduce diversity distillation, a hybrid approach using the base model for only the first critical timestep before switching to the distilled model. This single intervention restores sample diversity while maintaining computational efficiency. We provide both causal validation and theoretical support showing why the very first timestep concentrates the diversity bottleneck in distilled models. Our code and data are available at https://distillation.baulab.info/

cs.GR↗

arXiv2025

When Are Concepts Erased From Diffusion Models?

In concept erasure, a model is modified to selectively prevent it from generating a target concept. Despite the rapid development of new methods, it remains unclear how thoroughly these approaches remove the target concept from the model. We begin by proposing two conceptual models for the erasure mechanism in diffusion models: (i) interfering with the model's internal guidance processes, and (ii) reducing the unconditional likelihood of generating the target concept, potentially removing it entirely. To assess whether a concept has been truly erased from the model, we introduce a comprehensive suite of independent probing techniques: supplying visual context, modifying the diffusion trajectory, applying classifier guidance, and analyzing the model's alternative generations that emerge in place of the erased concept. Our results shed light on the value of exploring concept erasure robustness outside of adversarial text inputs, and emphasize the importance of comprehensive evaluations for erasure in diffusion models.

cs.LG↗