Rethinking Circuit Evaluation: Do Circuits Explain Model Errors?
1mes
- Publicado
- Recolectado
Mechanistic interpretability (MI) aims to explain a model's behaviour through analyzing its internal computations; circuit-based explanations aim to isolate these computations with compact subnetworks validated by ablating the rest of the model. We show that circuits validated this way may fail to recover the underlying mechanism of the model's behaviour by closely reproducing its successful decisions while failing to account for most of its errors. Such explanations should account for the model's particular errors as well as its successes. We evaluate this requirement by measuring exact answer agreement separately on model successes and failures, across circuit sizes and ablation settings, on IOI, Docstring, and six model-task settings from the Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark. We discover that many tested circuits closely replicate correct behaviour while missing most of the model's errors. On indirect object identification (IOI) for GPT-2 small, under mean ablation, the manual circuit and tested automated circuits, including one trained against the model's full output distribution, agree with the model on 97.3-99.5% of prompts it answers correctly but only 11.4-41.7% of errors. An IOI case study shows that lost errors are recoverable by restoring omitted attention-heads which raise error reproduction from 14.2% to 75.1% on a separate held-out set with 0.41 percentage point decrease on correct agreement, exceeding matched random extensions and scalar-biased control. Intervention traces show how omitted computations produce specific wrong answers for a reproducible subset of errors. In all, these findings show circuits can preserve task success without adequately explaining model's failures, and support exact error reproduction as a necessary, but not sufficient, test of circuit-based explanations of model behaviour.
Autores
Li Zhang, Chuqin Geng, Mark Zhang, Chen Yang, Luke Zhang, Haolin Ye, Xujie Si
Categorías
overfeed.news indexa y enlaza. Publicamos un extracto breve; el artículo completo sigue en arXiv AI Papers.
Más de arXiv AI Papers
Inicia sesión para seguir esta fuente
Medical Image Segmentation: Foundation Model Adaptation versus Task-Specific Training
Foundation models pretrained on large natural-image collections are increasingly adapted for medical image segmentation, in the expectation that they will replace models trained for each task. Most comparisons, however, use data from the training distribution and a single task-specific baseline whose configuration is rarely justified, and therefore provide limited evidence of performance at new clinical sites. It also remains unclear how much of a foundation model must be adapted, and what determines this. We adapted a foundation model, DINOv2, with strategies ranging from tuning only its bias terms to full fine-tuning, and compared it with U-Nets and ResU-Nets trained from scratch. Experiments covered colonoscopy, breast ultrasound and dermoscopy, with testing on held-out data from the training source and on independent datasets from other institutions. The adapted foundation model generalised better on every external dataset. Within the training distribution, the task-specific models remained competitive when training data were abundant, and delineated boundaries more precisely, while the foundation model more often missed small lesions. Only a small fraction of the foundation model required adaptation, and the capacity needed was determined by the imaging domain rather than by the adaptation method. A widely used polyp test set was also found to duplicate images from another benchmark. Foundation-model adaptation is therefore warranted where models must work across sites, with capacity selected on the target domain.
Toward Foundation Detection Models via Example-Based Grounding in EM-DETR
DeepLearning (DL)-based Computer-Aided Diagnostic (CAD) systems have shown great promise in supporting clinicians, but their performance heavily depends on the availability of large, well-annotated datasets. In medical lesion detection, the scarcity of comprehensive, stan dardized annotations and the heterogeneity of existing datasets limit the development of robust foundation models. In this work, we introduce a novel approach to building a multi-domain foundation model for le sion detection by integrating diverse medical image datasets annotated for both anatomical structures and abnormalities. We first propose a student-teacher training strategy to effectively combine datasets with heterogeneous label spaces, mitigating catastrophic forgetting, and im proving feature learning. In addition, building on our previously pro posed example-based EM-DETR framework, we adapt it to jointly learn from multiple domain-specific datasets, enabling fine-grained, example driven detection across modalities. Our model achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) results, with image-level AUC scores exceeding previous SOTA by 1% point on four key findings in CXRs. We achieve a leading mAP50 in CXRs and mammography, surpassing EM-DETR trained on a single dataset by 2-3% points. This approach paves the way for scalable foundation models in medical imaging that leverage heterogeneous data while maintaining robust and generalizable performance.
TorchCurves: Differentiable Parametric Curves
We present TorchCurves, a PyTorch library that treats vector-valued parametric curves as learnable primitives. Its central operation maps batches of scalar inputs to points on curves represented in B-spline or Legendre polynomial bases, with differentiation through both inputs and coefficients. Curve coefficients can be optimized jointly with the surrounding model or produced by another network. The library provides trainable modules, reusable basis modules, and a functional interface, supporting applications ranging from continuous feature embeddings to Kolmogorov-Arnold networks and functional regression. Its implementation combines classical evaluation algorithms with vectorized PyTorch operations, emphasizing readability and maintainability without custom hardware kernels. Timing experiments compare curve evaluation against NumPy and SciPy and KAN training against EfficientKAN across a range of problem sizes. The results illustrate where this generality remains computationally practical and where overhead is substantial. Library is available on GitHub at https://github.com/alexshtf/torchcurves.
AutoScaffold: AI-Guided Scaffolding for Reinforcement Learning of Language Models
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) produces rich training experience, yet outcome rewards reduce each attempt to a single number and leave most of this information unused. Training-time scaffolds, such as strategies or hints added to the prompt during training, offer a natural way to turn this information into guidance, but their design and adaptation are largely left to humans and tailored to specific domains. We introduce AutoScaffold, a unified AI-for-AI framework that turns a student's training experience into adaptive scaffolds, with minimal domain-specific information and no human intervention during training. A frozen teacher periodically examines this experience, diagnoses bottlenecks, and designs scaffolds in two forms: (i) strategies shared across a class of tasks and (ii) hints for individual hard tasks, adjusting the content and amount of support as the student learns. The scaffolds are removed at evaluation. We apply the same framework to ALFWorld, search-based QA, mathematical reasoning, and GPU kernel generation. When evaluated without scaffolds, students trained with AutoScaffold outperform those trained with the corresponding RL baselines in all four domains, with gains of 7.2 points in ALFWorld success and 4.0 points in average QA exact match. On GPU kernel generation, AutoScaffold increases the fraction of tasks with a correct kernel that runs faster than the PyTorch reference by up to 5.0 points. On math, our student surpasses QuestA's reported accuracy using approximately one-third as many student training steps. Analyses show that the teacher identifies a different failure in each task class and shifts its scaffolds from step-by-step workflows to targeted fixes as the student improves, and that its revised scaffolds help the student learn more than keeping the previous scaffold or using no scaffold.