PreprintCited by 1Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Topic ModelingAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Disentangling Recall and Reasoning in Transformer Models through Layer-wise Attention and Activation Analysis

Open access
Fartale, Harshwardhan, Kattamuri, Ashish, Raja, Rahul, Vats, Arpita, Prasad, Ishita, Moharir, Akshata Kishore·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Transformer-based language models excel at both recall (retrieving memorized facts) and reasoning (performing multi-step inference), but whether these abilities rely on distinct internal mechanisms remains unclear. Distinguishing recall from reasoning is crucial for predicting model generalization, designing targeted evaluations, and building safer interventions that affect one ability without disrupting the other.We approach this question through mechanistic interpretability, using controlled datasets of synthetic linguistic puzzles to probe transformer models at the layer, head, and neuron level. Our pipeline combines activation patching and structured ablations to causally measure component contributions to each task type. Across two model families (Qwen and LLaMA), we find that interventions on distinct layers and attention heads lead to selective impairments: disabling identified "recall circuits" reduces fact-retrieval accuracy by up to 15\% while leaving reasoning intact, whereas disabling "reasoning circuits" reduces multi-step inference by a comparable margin. At the neuron level, we observe task-specific firing patterns, though these effects are less robust, consistent with neuronal polysemanticity.Our results provide the first causal evidence that recall and reasoning rely on separable but interacting circuits in transformer models. These findings advance mechanistic interpretability by linking circuit-level structure to functional specialization and demonstrate how controlled datasets and causal interventions can yield mechanistic insights into model cognition, informing safer deployment of large language models.

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.2510.03366

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Causal patching confirms that targeted activations can toggle behavior between memory retrieval and novel inference.

    “while causal patching confirms that targeted activations can toggle behavior between memory retrieval and novel inference (Fartale et al., 2025;Hong et al., 2025b).”

    From Good Arguments Against the People Pleasers: How Reasoning Mitigates (Yet Masks) LLM Sycophancy (2026) · cites this paper as Fartale et al., 2025

    Section 2.2 and Section 3.1 report causal activation patching and targeted interventions that selectively impair factual recall or reasoning. They support a causal role for the targeted components, but do not show that patching toggles the model from memory retrieval to novel inference or vice versa. (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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Andrew M. Bean, Simi Hellsten, Harry Mayne, Jabez Magomere, Ethan A. Chi, Ryan Chi, Scott A. Hale, and Hannah Rose Kirk. 2024. LINGOLY: A bench- mark of olympiad-level linguistic reasoning puzzles in low-resource and extinct languages. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  2. Henrike Beyer and Chris Reed. 2025. Lexical recall or logical reasoning: Probing the limits of reasoning abilities in large language models. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13532-13557, Vienna, Austria. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  3. Roger, Vlad Mikulik, Samuel R. Bowman, Jan Leike, Jared Kaplan, and Ethan Perez. 2025. Reasoning models don't always say what they think. Preprint, arXiv:2505.05410. · arXiv
  4. Nathan Chi, Teodor Malchev, Riley Kong, Ryan Chi, Lucas Huang, Ethan Chi, R. McCoy, and Dragomir Radev. 2024. ModeLing: A novel dataset for testing linguistic reasoning in language models. In Proceed- ings of the 6th Workshop on Research in Compu- tational Linguistic Typology and Multilingual NLP, St. Julian's, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  5. Mukund Choudhary, KV Aditya Srivatsa, Gaurja Aeron, Antara Raaghavi Bhattacharya, Dang Khoa Dang Dinh, Ikhlasul Akmal Hanif, Daria Kotova, Ekaterina Kochmar, and Monojit Choudhury. 2025. Unveiling: What makes linguistics olympiad puzzles tricky for llms? Preprint, arXiv:2508.11260. · arXiv
  6. Jacob Cohen. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2 edition.
  7. Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. 2021. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 5765-5769. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Ryan Greenblatt, Carson Denison, Benjamin Wright, Fabien Roger, Monte MacDiarmid, Sam Marks, Jo- hannes Treutlein, Tim Belonax, Jack Chen, David Duvenaud, Akbir Khan, Julian Michael, Sören Min- dermann, Ethan Perez, Linda Petrini, Jonathan Ue- sato, Jared Kaplan, Buck Shlegeris, Samuel R. Bow- man, and Evan Hubinger. 2024. Alignment faking in large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2412.14093. · arXiv
  9. Mingyu Jin, Weidi Luo, Sitao Cheng, Xinyi Wang, Wenyue Hua, Ruixiang Tang, William Yang Wang, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Disentangling memory and reasoning ability in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.13504. · arXiv
  10. Henry B Mann and Donald R Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochasti- cally larger than the other. The Annals of Mathemati- cal Statistics, 18(1):50-60. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Gözde Gül S¸ ahin, Yova Kementchedjhieva, Phillip Rust, and Iryna Gurevych. 2020. PuzzLing Machines: A Challenge on Learning From Small Data. In Proceed- ings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  12. Eduardo Sánchez, Belen Alastruey, Christophe Rop- ers, Pontus Stenetorp, Mikel Artetxe, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2024. Linguini: A benchmark for language-agnostic linguistic reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12126. · arXiv
  13. Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2023. Language models don't always say what they think: Unfaithful ex- planations in chain-of-thought prompting. Preprint, arXiv:2305.04388. · arXiv
  14. An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Day- iheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, and 41 others. 2025. Qwen3 technical report. Preprint, arXiv:2505.09388. · arXiv
  15. Yu Zhang, Peter Tin ˇo, Aleš Leonardis, and Ke Tang. 2021. A survey on neural network interpretability. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computa- tional Intelligence, 5(5):726-742. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fartale, H., Kattamuri, A., Raja, R., Vats, A., Prasad, I., & Moharir, A. K.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414968839
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
transformer language models, mechanistic interpretability, attention heads, activation patching, ablation study, multi-step reasoning, fact retrieval, Qwen, llamas, large language model safety

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