Goto

Collaborating Authors

 representational analysis


Representation biases: will we achieve complete understanding by analyzing representations?

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

A common approach in neuroscience is to study neural representations as a means to understand a system -- increasingly, by relating the neural representations to the internal representations learned by computational models. However, a recent work in machine learning (Lampinen, 2024) shows that learned feature representations may be biased to over-represent certain features, and represent others more weakly and less-consistently. For example, simple (linear) features may be more strongly and more consistently represented than complex (highly nonlinear) features. These biases could pose challenges for achieving full understanding of a system through representational analysis. In this perspective, we illustrate these challenges -- showing how feature representation biases can lead to strongly biased inferences from common analyses like PCA, regression, and RSA. We also present homomorphic encryption as a simple case study of the potential for strong dissociation between patterns of representation and computation. We discuss the implications of these results for representational comparisons between systems, and for neuroscience more generally.


Representational Analysis of Binding in Large Language Models

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Entity tracking is essential for complex reasoning. To perform in-context entity tracking, language models (LMs) must bind an entity to its attribute (e.g., bind a container to its content) to recall attribute for a given entity. For example, given a context mentioning ``The coffee is in Box Z, the stone is in Box M, the map is in Box H'', to infer ``Box Z contains the coffee'' later, LMs must bind ``Box Z'' to ``coffee''. To explain the binding behaviour of LMs, Feng and Steinhardt (2023) introduce a Binding ID mechanism and state that LMs use a abstract concept called Binding ID (BI) to internally mark entity-attribute pairs. However, they have not directly captured the BI determinant information from entity activations. In this work, we provide a novel view of the Binding ID mechanism by localizing the prototype of BI information. Specifically, we discover that there exists a low-rank subspace in the hidden state (or activation) of LMs, that primarily encodes the order of entity and attribute and which is used as the prototype of BI to causally determine the binding. To identify this subspace, we choose principle component analysis as our first attempt and it is empirically proven to be effective. Moreover, we also discover that when editing representations along directions in the subspace, LMs tend to bind a given entity to other attributes accordingly. For example, by patching activations along the BI encoding direction we can make the LM to infer ``Box Z contains the stone'' and ``Box Z contains the map''.