PreprintCited by 63Topic ModelingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Natural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Tracking

Open access

Abstract

Fine-tuning on generalized tasks such as instruction following, code generation, and mathematics has been shown to enhance language models' performance on a range of tasks. Nevertheless, explanations of how such fine-tuning influences the internal computations in these models remain elusive. We study how fine-tuning affects the internal mechanisms implemented in language models. As a case study, we explore the property of entity tracking, a crucial facet of language comprehension, where models fine-tuned on mathematics have substantial performance gains. We identify the mechanism that enables entity tracking and show that (i) in both the original model and its fine-tuned versions primarily the same circuit implements entity tracking. In fact, the entity tracking circuit of the original model on the fine-tuned versions performs better than the full original model. (ii) The circuits of all the models implement roughly the same functionality: Entity tracking is performed by tracking the position of the correct entity in both the original model and its fine-tuned versions. (iii) Performance boost in the fine-tuned models is primarily attributed to its improved ability to handle the augmented positional information. To uncover these findings, we employ: Patch Patching, DCM, which automatically detects model components responsible for specific semantics, and CMAP, a new approach for patching activations across models to reveal improved mechanisms. Our findings suggest that fine-tuning enhances, rather than fundamentally alters, the mechanistic operation of the model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.14811

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Finetuning improves capabilities primarily by enhancing existing circuits, rather than developing fundamentally new mechanisms.

    “Prakash et al. (2024) find evidence that finetuning improves capabilities primarily by enhancing existing circuits, rather than developing fundamentally new mechanisms.”

    From Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability (2025) · cites this paper as Prakash et al., 2024

    The Introduction (§1) says the findings indicate that fine-tuning enhanced an existing mechanism rather than causing a fundamental shift, supporting the core paraphrase. But the Discussion (§7) limits the evidence to entity tracking in three fine-tuned models and says further tasks and models are needed to know whether this pattern is typical. The claim's unqualified reference to capabilities is broader than the study establishes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent work suggests that existing finetuning methodologies primarily make shallow edits to existing model representations and circuitry.

    “Recent work (Jain et al., 2024;Prakash et al., 2024;Lee et al., 2025) suggests that existing finetuning methodologies primarily make shallow edits to existing model representations and circuitry.”

    From Open Problems in Mechanistic Interpretability (2025) · cites this paper as Prakash et al., 2024

    The Introduction (§1) says fine-tuning enhanced an existing entity-tracking mechanism rather than fundamentally shifting it, and found similar internal representations. The Discussion (§7) limits the study to one task and three fine-tuned models and says further work is needed to determine whether this invariance is typical. It therefore does not establish that existing fine-tuning methodologies generally make primarily shallow edits. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Michael Bommarito II and Daniel Martin Katz. Gpt takes the bar exam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14402, 2022. · arXiv
  2. Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 30, 2017.
  3. Bilal Chughtai, Lawrence Chan, and Neel Nanda. A toy model of universality: Reverse engineering how networks learn group operations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03025, 2023. · arXiv
  4. Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Eric Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416, 2022. · arXiv
  5. Arthur Conmy, Augustine Mavor-Parker, Aengus Lynch, Stefan Heimersheim, and Adrià Garriga- Alonso. Towards automated circuit discovery for mechanistic interpretability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  6. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pp. 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1423. URL https://aclanthology.org/ N19-1423. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Almog Gueta, Elad Venezian, Colin Raffel, Noam Slonim, Yoav Katz, and Leshem Choshen. Knowledge is a region in weight space for fine-tuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04863, 2023. · arXiv
  8. Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasović, Swabha Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A Smith. Don't stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 8342-8360, 2020.
  9. Irene Heim. File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. Semantics Critical Concepts in Linguistics, pp. 108-135, 1983.
  10. Jeremy Howard and Sebastian Ruder. Universal language model fine-tuning for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 328-339, 2018.
  11. Edward J Hu, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  12. Gabriel Ilharco, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Mitchell Wortsman, Suchin Gururangan, Ludwig Schmidt, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Ali Farhadi. Editing models with task arithmetic. ArXiv, abs/2212.04089, 2022. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 254408495. · arXiv
  13. Hans Kamp, Josef Van Genabith, and Uwe Reyle. Discourse representation theory. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Volume 15, pp. 125-394. Springer, 2010.
  14. Lauri Karttunen. Discourse referents. In Notes from the linguistic underground, pp. 363-385.
  15. Najoung Kim and Sebastian Schuster. Entity tracking in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02363, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Olga Kovaleva, Alexey Romanov, Anna Rogers, and Anna Rumshisky. Revealing the dark se- crets of BERT. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 4365-4374, Hong Kong, China, November 2019. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D19-1445. URL https://aclanthology.org/ D19-1445. · DOI
  17. Ananya Kumar, Aditi Raghunathan, Robbie Jones, Tengyu Ma, and Percy Liang. Fine- tuning can distort pretrained features and underperform out-of-distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10054, 2022. · arXiv
  18. Belinda Z. Li, Maxwell Nye, and Jacob Andreas. Implicit representations of meaning in neural language models. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli (eds.), Proceed- ings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 1813-1827, Online, August 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2021.acl-long.143. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.143. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Kenneth Li, Aspen K Hopkins, David Bau, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Watten- berg. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13382, 2022. · arXiv
  20. David Lindner, János Kramár, Sebastian Farquhar, Matthew Rahtz, Tom McGrath, and Vladimir Mikulik. Tracr: Compiled transformers as a laboratory for interpretability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  21. Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Yiming Yang, and Graham Neubig. Language models of code are few-shot commonsense learners. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1384-1403, 2022.
  22. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in GPT. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2022.
  23. Amil Merchant, Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Ellie Pavlick, and Ian Tenney. What happens to BERT em- beddings during fine-tuning? In Afra Alishahi, Yonatan Belinkov, Grzegorz Chrupała, Dieuwke Hupkes, Yuval Pinter, and Hassan Sajjad (eds.), Proceedings of the Third BlackboxNLP Work- shop on Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp. 33-44, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.blackboxnlp-1.4. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.blackboxnlp-1. · DOI
  24. Neel Nanda, Lawrence Chan, Tom Liberum, Jess Smith, and Jacob Steinhardt. Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05217, 2023. · arXiv
  25. Mante S Nieuwland and Jos JA Van Berkum. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 18(7):1098-1111, 2006.
  26. Chris Olah, Alexander Mordvintsev, and Ludwig Schubert. Feature visualization. Distill, 2(11):e7, 2017.
  27. Chris Olah, Nick Cammarata, Ludwig Schubert, Gabriel Goh, Michael Petrov, and Shan Carter. Zoom in: An introduction to circuits. Distill, 5(3):e00024-001, 2020.
  28. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 27730-27744, 2022.
  29. Abhishek Panigrahi, Nikunj Saunshi, Haoyu Zhao, and Sanjeev Arora. Task-specific skill localiza- tion in fine-tuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06600, 2023. · arXiv
  30. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  31. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551, 2020.
  32. Shubham Toshniwal, Sam Wiseman, Karen Livescu, and Kevin Gimpel. Chess as a testbed for language model state tracking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp. 11385-11393, 2022.
  33. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023b. · arXiv
  34. Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. Investigating gender bias in language models using causal mediation analysis. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (eds.), Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pp. 12388-12401.
  35. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2020/file/92650b2e92217715fe312e6fa7b90d82-Paper.pdf.
  36. John Wu, Yonatan Belinkov, Hassan Sajjad, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, and James Glass. Sim- ilarity analysis of contextual word representation models. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 4638-4655, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.422. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.422. · DOI
  37. Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, Thomas Icard, Christopher Potts, and Noah Goodman. Interpretabil- ity at scale: Identifying causal mechanisms in alpaca. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  38. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685, 2023. · arXiv
  39. Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, LILI YU, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. LIMA: Less is more for alignment. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 2023.
  40. Yichu Zhou and Vivek Srikumar. A closer look at how fine-tuning changes BERT. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 1046-1061, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022. acl-long.75. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.75. L8 H13, L11 H24, L5 H4, L9 H26, L12 H11, L10 H12, L9 H6, L11 H11, L12 H5, L7 H2, L9 H28, L10 H7, L7 H0, L6 H31 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Prakash, N., Shaham, T. R., Haklay, T., Belinkov, Y., & Bau, D.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392121825
Cited by
63
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Open Philanthropy Project
  • Azrieli Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
entity tracking, fine-tuning, circuit analysis, DCM, CMAP, activation patching, positional information, language comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review