In mechanistic interpretability, attention heads are commonly elevated to role claims (e.g., "this head represents addition") when they are necessary for a behavior, encode it linearly, and recover that behavior when restored after ablation. We show this evidence is insufficient: across three 7-8B instruction-tuned models and five computation families, heads passing all three checks routinely fail to transfer the computation when their activations are patched into a different prompt under matched controls. We introduce KID (Knowing / Intent / Doing), a role-assignment lens for attention heads, and pair it with a three-stage pipeline: capability-selective screening (CSS), singular value decomposition (SVD), and activation transduction under matched controls. Our results document a preliminary role taxonomy (including prompt-trajectory stabilizers, answer-side logit-bias heads, and soft computation-pattern carriers) and show that the same-answer control (a transduction target sharing the answer string but not the requested computation) is an underused check that exposes broad state transfer masquerading as semantic specificity.
Ablation-Reversible Heads Don't Transfer: A Stress Test for Mechanistic Role Claims in Transformers
In mechanistic interpretability, attention heads are commonly elevated to role claims (e.g., "this head represents addition") when they are necessary for a behavior, encode it linearly, and recover that behavior when restored after ablation.
- Preview

- Year
- 2026
- Hosting
- Full text hostedCC-BY-4.0
Cite
Notes
Only stored in your browser.
Attribution
- Abstract & full text
- arxiv.org/abs/2606.08292CC-BY-4.0
- TL;DR
- Semantic Scholar