Belief or Circuitry? Causal Evidence for In-Context Graph Learning
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866911664407838720 |
|---|---|
| author | Kowalyshyn, Katharine Duggan, Timothy Little, Daniel Hughes, Michael C |
| author_facet | Kowalyshyn, Katharine Duggan, Timothy Little, Daniel Hughes, Michael C |
| contents | How do LLMs learn in-context? Is it by pattern-matching recent tokens, or by inferring latent structure? We probe this question using a toy graph random-walk across two competing graph structures. This task's answer is, in principle, decidable: either the model tracks global topology, or it copies local transitions. We present two lines of evidence that neither account alone is sufficient. First, reconstructing the internal representation structure via PCA reveals that at intermediate mixture ratios, both graph topologies are encoded in orthogonal principal subspaces simultaneously. This pattern is difficult to reconcile with purely local transition copying. Second, residual-stream activation patching and graph-difference steering causally intervene on this graph-family signal: late-layer patching almost fully transfers the clean graph preference, while linear steering moves predictions in the intended direction and fails under norm-matched and label-shuffled controls. Taken together, our findings are most consistent with a dual-mechanism account in which genuine structure inference and induction circuits operate in parallel. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_08405 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Belief or Circuitry? Causal Evidence for In-Context Graph Learning Kowalyshyn, Katharine Duggan, Timothy Little, Daniel Hughes, Michael C Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning How do LLMs learn in-context? Is it by pattern-matching recent tokens, or by inferring latent structure? We probe this question using a toy graph random-walk across two competing graph structures. This task's answer is, in principle, decidable: either the model tracks global topology, or it copies local transitions. We present two lines of evidence that neither account alone is sufficient. First, reconstructing the internal representation structure via PCA reveals that at intermediate mixture ratios, both graph topologies are encoded in orthogonal principal subspaces simultaneously. This pattern is difficult to reconcile with purely local transition copying. Second, residual-stream activation patching and graph-difference steering causally intervene on this graph-family signal: late-layer patching almost fully transfers the clean graph preference, while linear steering moves predictions in the intended direction and fails under norm-matched and label-shuffled controls. Taken together, our findings are most consistent with a dual-mechanism account in which genuine structure inference and induction circuits operate in parallel. |
| title | Belief or Circuitry? Causal Evidence for In-Context Graph Learning |
| topic | Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08405 |